Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1985

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

3338 5 December 1985 Petitions

THURSDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1985

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. J. H. Wamer, Toowoomba South) read prayers and took the chair at 11 a.m.

PRIVILEGE

Matter Referred to Select Committee of Privileges; Ruling by Mr Speaker Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, with reference to matters raised by the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) and a subsequent motion put to the House by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) referring those matters to the Select Committee of Privileges, and the difference in the record between the Votes and Proceedings and the verbatim Hansard, I beUeve it is imperative that action be taken to resolve the matter. I now call the Leader of the House. CHANGE TO VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS ENTRY Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House), by leave, without notice: I move— "That the House agrees that wording of the motion of referral to the Select Committee of Privileges namely entry Number 4, Votes and Proceedings No. 21 dated 17 October 1985, be changed to— 'That the matters raised by the Honourable Member for Salisbury during his speech on matters of public interest on Wednesday, 16 October, be referred to the Select Committee of Privileges for consideration.' " Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petitions—

White Water Rafting Enterprise From Mr De Lacy (107 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will prevent White Water Rafting Enterprise from operating on the Barron River at Lake Placid or place restrictions on its operations.

Deregulation of Trading Hours, Surfers Paradise From Mr Borbidge (464 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland wiU deregulate trading hours for Surfers Paradise.

Coronary Care Unit, Cairns Base Hospital From Mr De Lacy (16 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will take action to overcome shortage of staff at the Coronary Care Unit at the Caims Base Hospital.

Local Government Superannuation Scheme From Mr White (18 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will take action to delay the implementation of the new form of Local Government Superannuation Scheme until after full consideration of its effects. Papers 5 December 1985 3339

Griffith University Course in Family Relationships From Mrs Harvey (16 signatories) praying that the ParUament of Queensland will establish an inquiry into the Griffith University course in family relationships. [Similar petitions were received from Mr Littleproud (15 signatories) and Mr Jennings (16 signatories).] Withdrawal from Sale of Small-sized Packets of Cigarettes From Mr Jennings (829 signatories) praying that the Pariiament of Queensland will withdraw from sale small-sized packets of cigarettes. Schools and School Programs for Children with Exceptional Needs From Mr Jennings (20 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will initiate positive action to provide specially designed schools and school programs for children with exceptional needs. Paramedic Service From Mr Shaw (3 394 signatories) praying that the Parliament of Queensland will take urgent action to institute a paramedic service in the State. Petitions received.

PAPERS The following papers were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed— Reports— State Govemment Insurance Office, Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1985 Commissioner of Land Tax for the year ended 30 June 1985 Department of Main Roads, together with appendices, for the year ended 30 June 1985 Department of Mines for the year ended 30 June 1985 SmaU Business Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1985 Queensland Health and Medical Services for the year ended 30 June 1985 Griffith University for the year ended 31 December 1984 University of Queensland for the year ended 31 December 1984 Department of Employment and Industrial Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1985 Comptroller-General of Prisons for the year ended 30 June 1985 Department of Children's Services for the year ended 30 June 1985 Library Board of Queensland for the year ended 30 June 1985 Queensland Art Gallery for the year ended 30 June 1985. The foUowing papers were laid on the table— Proclamation under the Forestry Act 1959-1984 Orders in Council under— City of Brisbane Act 1924-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Explosives Act 1952-1981 Forestry Act 1959-1984 Stock Routes and Rural Lands Protection Act 1944-1984 Barrier Fences Act 1954-1984 3340 5 December 1985 Ministerial Statements

Grammar Schools Act 1975-1984 and the Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982-1984 Agricultural Bank (Loans) Act 1959-1981 Fisheries Act 1976-1984 Regulations under— Public Service Act 1922-1978 Hospitals Act 1936-1984 Agricultural Standards Act 1952-1981 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966-1983 Fishing Industry Organization and Marketing Act 1982-1984 Fmit Marketing Organisation Act 1923-1984 Fmit and Vegetables Act 1947-1972 Hen Quotas Act 1973-1985 Statute under the University of Queensland Act 1965-1984 Report of the Rice Marketing Board for the year ended 31 March 1985.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Brochure, Discovering the Future Hon. L. W. POWELL (Isis—Minister for Education) (11.9. a.m.), by leave: For the information of all members, I present the brochure entitled Discovering the Future, which has been produced by the tertiary institutions of Queensland. Queensland's unversities and colleges have a long and distinguished record of academic exceUence. That is reflected in the quality of research and technological innovation taking place in our tertiary institutions. This booklet brings together some of the technological innovations from Queensland universities, coUeges of advanced education and coUeges of technical and further education. The examples Ulustrate the extent to which the State's educational institutions have developed and applied new forms of technology. The publication illustrates innovations in medicine; in advanced scientific and practical equipment; in energy resources; in the environment; in primary industry; in veterinary science; and in technology in education. I believe that if Queensland is to continue to develop and expand, close co-operation between tertiary institutions and industry must be fostered to allow the transfer of new forms of technology to business. By identifying specific examples of technology development. Discovering the Future is able to demonstrate how the institutions are— producing innovations which are being taken up by industry; producing innovations in coUaboration with industry; sharing resources with industry to facilitate the transfer of new technology into business enterprises; providing education and training in new technologies to facUitate the transfer of new technologies to business; and utilising innovative teaching strategies. Discovering the Future shows Queensland's lead in technological innovation. It will be of vital interest to a wide audience of entrepeneurs, venture capitalists, industries seeking innovations development, management investment companies, academics and the media. Discovering the Future is for everyone who is interested in the development of our tertiary expertise and the future of Queensland. I commend the document to the House. Ministerial Statements 5 December 1985 3341 Job Creation in Queensland Hon. V. P. LESTER (Peak Downs—Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs) (11.13 a.m.), by leave: As we are nearing the end of the parliamentary sittings for this year, 1 thought it would be beneficial to provide a brief report to the House on job creation in Queensland. I am pleased to report that 1985 has been a year of prolific job creation in Queensland. During the 10 months to October 1985, on the latest figures avaUable, a total of 74 100 new jobs has been created in this State. That compares weU with the total of 302 700 jobs created in all of Australia. In other words, one in every four jobs created in Australia in 1985 was created in Queensland. When it is realised that Queensland has about 16 per cent of the nation's population, I am sure that honourable members wiU agree that that has been an outstanding performance—one of which all members of Parliament can be extremely proud. It is also significant to point out that the vast majority of the jobs were created in the private sector. The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show a 7.5 per cent increase in the employment of wage and salary eamers in the private sector in Queensland, and an increase of less than 1 per cent in the Govemment sector. Not many Govemments in Australia can proclaim a large increase in the private sector and a small increase in the Govemment sector. I have compiled the following to compare the employment-generating performance of the States and the Commonwealth. In the period under review, Queensland created 29.4 jobs per 10 000 head of population; New South Wales 16.1; Victoria 17; South Australia 15.9; Westem Australia 22; Tasmania 11.4; and nationally, 19.4 new jobs were created per 100 000 head of population. Those figures clearly show Queensland's performance. The statistician's figures prove that Queensland's record is the best in Australia. Once and for all, I say that the Govemment has put its money where its mouth is, despite constant doom-and-gloom criticism by Opposition members. 1 suggest that, as a Christmas gesture. Opposition members get right behind what the Queensland Govemment is doing and promote and be proud of this State instead of trying to condemn it. Desk Calendar Refills Hon. M. J. TENNI (Barron River—Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services) (11.15 a.m.), by leave: Last week, the honourable member for Sherwood treated this House to what must surely rate as one of the most spellbinding revelations of 1985. The matter concemed the purchase of desk calendar refiUs by the State Govemment. The honourable member drew upon his considerable skills as a barrister to prove conclusively that the State Govemment was wasting the tax-payers' money by purchasing Chinese-manufactured refills in preference to the cheaper, but of equal quality, AustraUan- made products. In a masterly display of tactics, the member for Sherwood tabled a paper sample, which, in his eyes, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the State Govemment was guilty of some colossal bureaucratic bungle. After seeing the paper sample concemed, all I can say is that the honourable member has once again thrown away his chance of becoming the Horace Rumpole or the Perry Mason of the Liberal Party. The facts are that the State Stores Board had every justification in rejecting the April 1985 tender submitted by James Hardie Spicers for the State Govemment's 1986 desk calendar refills. The honourable member may think that the State's public servants can afford to buy expensive executive diaries for their needs. However, the facts are that most of our public servants are not as well-heeled as the honourable member appears to be. They 3342 5 December 1985 Privilege

rely on their desk calendar refills, suppUed by the State Govemment, to jot down day- to-day appointments and reminder notes. The State Stores Board was mindful of this and, for the princely sum of 1.85c more for each calendar, was able to obtain a far superior paper product for this purpose than the one offered by James Hardie Spicers. Mr Innes: Rubbish! Mr TENNI: The honourable member should not speak too soon. It is very important to point out that Spicers, in a letter sent last month to the board, acknowledged that the paper sample it had submitted with the AprU 1985 tender was of a poorer quaUty. Had the company submitted a better-quaUty paper sample, as I am sure it will do next year, the outcome of the tender would have been much different. As any good barrister knows, one way to lose a case is to tamper with the evidence. The honourable member has gone one step further this time and misled this House by tabling a paper sample that is quite different from the original sample submitted to the board by Spicers. It is also not correct for him to claim that the Federal Govemment purchases from Spicers calendar refills made from paper of a type similar to that supplied by the company to the board last April. In the worst tradition of Federal Labor Govemments, Canberra is spending an extra 10c each per refill than the Queensland Govemment to buy more expensive desk calendars. The member for Sherwood has been so careless with the tmth about the tender for calendars that I am really surprised that he knows what month it is, let alone what day it is. To prove my point, I table a letter from James Hardie Spicers, which proves that the honourable member for Sherwood misled the Parliament. Whereupon the honourable gentleman laid the document on the table.

PRIVILEGE

Matter Referred to Select Committee of Privileges; Ruling by Mr Speaker Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (11.19 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr Alison: Oh, not again! Mr WARBURTON: Unfortunately for the honourable member, he will have to listen. Mr Speaker, I refer to your mling in this House on Tuesday regarding the referral of a matter to the Select Committee of Privileges. You referred honourable members to Standing Order No. 136, which you properly read to the House. It states— "Reference shall not be made to any proceedings of a Committee of the Whole House, or of a Select Committee, until the same have been reported to the House." Mr Speaker, in the light of your mling, I ask you what action you intend to take regarding statements made in this House yesterday by the Premier and Treasurer and by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing. Those statements deaU directiy with the substance matter of proceedings before the Privileges Committee and, therefore, were in clear breach of Standing Order No. 136. The statements to which I refer are those made in points of order taken by the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing and the Premier—who, I notice, is anxious to get to his feet—in response to matters of privilege properly raised by the Opposition in this House yesterday moming. Privilege 5 December 1985 3343

Mr Speaker, I ask you to inform the House what action you intend to take on these statements that, I repeat, were in clear breach of Standing Order No. 136, which you quite correctly pointed out to this House on the day before yesterday. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Speaker, point of order Mr SPEAKER: Orderi Mr WARBURTON: In conclusion, it is my belief that both the Premier and Treasurer and the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing should be directed by you, Mr Speaker, to withdraw the comments to which I have referred. Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Speaker, point of order, please. First of all, in reply to the honourable member Mr Warburton: You can't reply. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Speaker, point of order—a point of privilege. Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Premier to take his point of order as soon as I have made a Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement in relation to that—either a ministerial statement Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Premier wishes to speak to the point of privilege and is allowed to at any stage of this game, but I just want to say that I will answer the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition as soon as that matter is taken into consideration. SU JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition sought to have me withdraw the words that I said yesterday. First of all, that is not the law of this House. You cannot be retrospective in relation to a particular situation of this nature. The Leader of the Opposition should have asked for that yesterday, at the time it took place, otherwise anyone could go back, day after day, and go right through the records and question proceedings. That is No. 1. No. 2, it was cleared by the clerk of the court yesterday before it was made a public statement. Mr Mackenroth: Try the Clerk of the Parliament. Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, the Clerk of the Pariiament cleared it before the press statement was released. Thirdly, let me say how hypocritical the Leader of the Opposition is. Who has infringed on the rights of the Select Committee of PrivUeges more than the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss)? He has been at it day after day. He has never stopped. He is the one who ought to apologise to the House. There is no way in the world that 1 am going to withdraw it, because you cannot go into retrospectivity. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Owing to the seriousness of the accusations of the Leader of the Opposition—the matter of privilege—I will have to look into the matter and report back accordingly. That is what I intend to do. Honourable members, let me reiterate that a point of order must be taken at the time, and if it is not taken at the time, it cannot be brought up. Mr Goss: I took it at the time. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will not have the honourable member for SaUsbury arguing with the Chair. 3344 5 December 1985 Questions Upon Notice

QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE Questions submitted on notice were answered as follows—

1. Accident at Kuraby Involving Mr B. R. Todd Mr WARBURTON asked the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police— With reference to the fatal accident at a Kuraby intersection involving Mr Barry Raymond Todd of Loganholme on 14 Febmary— Did the Traffic Accident Investigation Squad make a report in respect of this particular road accident and, if so, what are the contents of that report? Answer— The traffic accident involving the death of Barry Raymond Todd at Underwood on 14 Febmary 1985 was investigated by uniformed poUce from Woodridge, assisted by Criminal Investigation Branch officers from Beenleigh, not by the Traffic Accident Investigation Squad. The police report was referred to the Coroner (R. M. Costigan, Esq.) and, on 12 July 1985, he found that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Barry Raymond Todd and that no person was to be committed for trial. I have the copy of the report.

2. Effect on Mining and Rural Industries of Tax on Accommodation Mr NEAL asked the Premier and Treasurer— With reference to the Hawke Govemment's tax on accommodation— What effect will such a tax have on the mining and mral industries in this State? Answer— I thank the honourable member for his question. This is a very serious matter and Queenslanders need to be alerted to the poUcies being implemented by the Hawke ACTU/ALP coalition Govemment in Canberra. If the Senate passes the tax on fringe benefits, there will be no more mining towns such as Moranbah, Dysart and Blackwater. That will see the passing of an era. No more mining towns wiU be estabUshed in this State or in any other State, that is for certain. The Australian Mining Industry Council has estimated that the annual cost of the tax on subsidised housing would be $5 5m, or 10 per cent of the industry's after-tax profits. One Queensland mining company has ascertained that if the tax on fringe benefits applying to houses for employees is given Royal assent, there would be an additional tax biU of $ 10m for the mining company. Instead of building homes for employees, one company is considering flying employes from regional centres to the mining sites each day rather than bear the cost of building homes, amenities and much of the infrastmcuture for the mining towns. In other areas, mining companies will not proceed with their projects. Since 1980, employees provided with housing have been taxed on 10 per cent of the deemed rental value, less rent paid. The 90 per cent reduction on the value is in recognition of the remoteness, lack of choice and other factors. Under the new system, this would be reduced from 90 per cent to 33 per cent. The tax is a blatant attack on the fundamental principle of fair and equitable taxation, because it taxes the provider of the perceived benefit rather than the recipient. It is a mthless tax on employment. This proposed fringe-benefits tax jeopardises future development and incentive. It is a jealous tax, as it taxes private enterprise. Here in Queensland, we work on the basis of balanced representation and balanced development. The central Queensland area will be hard hit with this proposed tax. It is Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3345 highly discriminatory, as Queensland wiU have to pay the highest tax of any State in relation to the mining industry. Already we are contributing about $20m a month through excises on coal and the coal export duty. This is not enough, though, for Canberra. The Hawke ACTU/ALP coalition Govemment now wants to rip off another $10m. It is to the etemal shame of the Democrats and Senator Macklin that they do not block this iniquitous tax. I will be reminding Queenslanders at the next Senate election that Senator Macklin, the Labor Party and the ACTU imposed this tax, which will destroy jobs and proposed development. The tax on mral housing is a downright attack on the primary industry. For an employer, provision of subsidised housing, electricity, telephone, meat, and other services on mral properties has been a long tradition. It has been provided to attract and retain workers in the country areas. To tax housing is another burden on mral producers that they cannot afford. A recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey of 130 000 farm businesses revealed an average debt load of $53,000. The Australian farmer is competing against overseas producers heavily subsidised by Govemment subsidies, which the Australian farmers do not receive and do not want. The mral producers in Australia eam approximately 40 per cent of Australia's export income. All the mral producers want from the Hawke ACTU/ALP coaUtion is a fair go. Rural producers whom I know say that it is a privilege to pay income tax. It shows they are efficient and viable outfits. Yet Treasurer Keating had the cheek to call them tax cheats. It is the Hawke ACTU/ALP coalition Govemment that is doing the cheating now, by cheating employees out of jobs on mral properties through the iniquitous fringe- benefits tax.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Bruce Highway, Beerburrum Deviation Mr WARBURTON: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing—he can rest easy—I refer to publicity regarding the opening of the Beerburmm deviation, which is the new section of the Bmce Highway between Beerburmm and the Caloundra tum-off. The publicly, which emanated from the Minister's department, refers to the opening next Monday by the Premier of the new section of the highway. One could be forgiven for thinking that there was no involvement in that project by anybody else. I now ask: Is it correct that that project cost $26m, every cent of which was paid by the Federal Govemment? Mr Tenni interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr WARBURTON: Govemment members get upset easily. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am quite certain that the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing will be able to answer the question. Mr WARBURTON: Of course he wUl. Mr Tenni interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr WARBURTON: I am trying to. Is it correct that the project cost $20m, every cent of which was paid by the Federal Govemment? Is it correct also that all roadworks constmction and maintenance north of Brisbane from Bald Hills is paid for by the Federal Govemment? Mr Tenni interjected. Mr Alison interjected. 3346 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice

Mr WARBURTON: I have been waiting in vain for a waming to be given under Standing Order No. 123A. As the Minister would be in a position to know, I ask him: Is the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) attending the Beerburmm deviation opening ceremony and, as the Minister's department forgot to mention him, what role, if any, will he be playing in the opening ceremony? Mr HINZE: The present Federal Govemment seems determined to give the impression throughout Australia that everything emanates from Canberra and that aU funds for roads throughout this nation come from that source. The Leader of the Opposition and I both know that that is completely incorrect. A study of the history of the fuel-taxing system in Australia reveals that at one time—particularly in the Menzies era—90 per cent of fuel taxes were retumed to the States for road constmction; now only about 20 per cent of those taxes are retumed to the States. This year, the position in Queensland is so bad that I have had to borrow money from the State Treasury to ensure that the local authorities are able to keep their employees and plant working. Tomorrow, the matter will again be discussed at the AT AC conference. I am assured that all the Ministers from all over Australia who meet with the Federal Minister tomorrow will impress upon him the serious position in regard to road funding in this nation. In answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I state that I believe that Mr Morris will be present. Mr Warburton: It is a pity the department didn't mention that. Mr HINZE: The Leader of the Opposition might say that. However, whenever I have had occasion to open roads in this State, it has been a joint effort; both Mr Morris and I have been present. At no time have I attempted to score a point at the expense of the Federal Minister. All I am saying is that when a new stretch of road the length of the road up to the Sunshine Coast is opened, surely it should be the prerogative of the Premier of this State to open it. Mr Warburton: Why? Mr HINZE: Of course it should be the prerogative of the Premier of this State. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Orderi Mr HINZE: Unfortunately, Opposition members will never rise to the occasion. I suppose members of the Opposition will always choose to remain in those very com­ fortable Opposition benches. I wish Opposition members well, and I hope that they stay there for ever. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Lytton has been interjecting since I entered the Chamber. I have to again wam him under Standing Order No. 123A. Mr HINZE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It was not a Dorothy Dixer; it only appeared to be.

Business of the House Mr WARBURTON: My question to the Premier and Treasurer is in relation to the business of the House. Information is to hand that the House will sit next Tuesday. That is reasonable. The Opposition believes that the Pariiament should sit more frequentiy. I understand that the purpose of sitting next Tuesday is to consider two BiUs that have not yet been introduced. Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3347

It has been said that the two Bills are the Suncorp Bill—I do not know its correct title—and the Industrial Development Corporation Bill, both being the responsibility of either the Premier or the Deputy Premier. I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Will the Bills be introduced today, which would still not allow proper time for consideration of them in accordance with Standing Orders, or is it the intention of the Govemment to introduce these two important Bills next Tuesday and jackboot the Bills through this Parliament? Finally, as he announced these measures three months ago, does not that once again highlight the arrogance and incompetence of both himself and his deputy when it comes to Treasury matters? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Judging by that question from the Leader of the Opposition, one would think that he intends opposing the BiUs and that he is against setting up a bank to help small business and primary producers. He gives the impression that it wiU cause a crisis when the Government introduces those two Bills and the one providing for the SGIO to be known as Suncorp, which will give that organisation greater freedom and a greater opportunity to branch out and expand. From the way the Leader of the Opposition talks, one would think that was a crime and that he will engage us in a tremendous tussle in the House to upset it. I hope that that will not be the Opposition's attitude. I thought that those two Bills would be supported unanimously, although I know that it is pretty hard to have agreement among all of the Opposition members. Mr Warburton: Tell us what is in it. Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition will receive a copy as soon as it is printed. Mr Warburton inteijected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on the Govemment Printing Office and the Parliamentary Counsel. The Parliamentary Counsel and his staff have had a very onerous duty over the recent period. The Leader of the Opposition can grimace as much as he likes; if he asks the Parliamentary Counsel, he will be told that the two Bills to which he has referred are lengthy pieces of legislation. The Parliamentary Counsel has not been able to complete them. The Bills will be completed, I believe, by tomorrow evening—I hope so—or at some time over the week­ end. All being well, the Leader of the Opposition may be able to get a copy tonight. It is not possible to get the Bills in time to introduce them to the House. It is a wonder that the Leader of the Opposition did not ask me what other Bills the Govemment would also introduce. That will keep until next Tuesday. Newcastle-Geelong Line; Defence Department Strategy Mr NEAL: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware of a report in today's Canberra Times indicating that the Defence Department strategy, which was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, advocated the abandonment of the so-called Brisbane line and, in its stead, the adoption of a Newcastle-Geelong Une, presumably via Canberra? Could he indicate to the House his views on the matter? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, I did see the article, which has been reported in a number of sections of the media this moming. Members of the press have contacted me, asking me for a comment on it. First, I say that the Feedom of Information Act, which was introduced by the Labor Party, ought to be aboUshed—got rid of—because it is interfering in so many places in which it ought not to apply. The Federal Govemment is finding itself severely embarrassed time and time again. Mr Burns interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is the second waming for the honourable member for Lytton under Standing Order No. 123A. It is his final waming. 3348 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice

Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The Commonwealth Govemment itself has been very embarrassed time and time again and has had to skid around its own Act. It is very embarrassed indeed. That deals with that side of the matter. I tum now to the other side. The statement that has been made must be very embarrassing for our army officers—the generals in charge of operations. I cannot imagine that they would think in that way in this modem age, when ballistic missiles can be sent from Vietnam, where the Russians now have a base, direct to here. It would not be much good having a line of forces around Newcastle. The nuclear submarines and vessels of the Russian navy are all round us in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Mr R. J. Gibbs: You are quite mad. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wolston. Mr R. J. Gibbs: Yes, Mr Speaker? Opposition Members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is no laughing matter. I heard a rather facetious and stupid remark from somebody, whom I could not see because of another honourable member. I believe it came from the honourable member for Wolston. Mr R. J. Gibbs: I am deeply touched. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have to wam the honourable member for Wolston under Standing Order No. 123A. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: In case you did not hear it, Mr Speaker, he said that I was mad. I know that he does not love me very much, but I am not very interested. Such statements generaUy come from somebody of that calibre. The main point is that such a policy is disastrous. I cannot believe that any army official would conceive of an imaginary defence line from the general area of Newcastle across the nation, leaving this very important part, Queensland, out in the open. Apart from all that, I again emphasise that nowadays in modem warfare, with high­ flying aircraft and ballistic missiles that can be fired from Vietnam, where modem missiles are located, it is possible to hit Canberra or any other capital city in Australia. Moreover, the fleet of the Russian navy has modem equipment and it is well known that Russian navy submarines patrol the oceans that surround this nation. It is unrealistic to expect that other nations would be worried about an imaginary line near Newcastle. That kind of defence measure will not save anyone, and I do not think that there is much to it. Photograph of Queen in Ipswich City Council Chamber Mr NEAL: To keep "Tiny Tom" happy, I direct a question to the Deputy Premier and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, and ask: Could the Minister, as the chief minder in the House of the concems affecting Ipswich and surrounding districts, inform honourable members of the saga of the missing photograph of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and why the Labor-dominated Ipswich City Council seems reluctant to hang the photograph in the new council chamber? Mr GUNN: As the honourable member has said, the Ipswich City Council is Labor- dominated; hence Ipswich is the Cinderella city of Queensland. It would remain so, if it were not for conservative entrepreneurs, such as Barry Kem, who will constmct a city maU at a cost of $85m. Let me explain that in the old councU chamber, there was a photo of the Queen hanging. Honourable Members interjected. Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3349 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It really must be Christmas-time. That was a slip of the tongue, as far as I am concemed. That is all that occurred. Sometimes I look at members of the Opposition and wonder. Mr GUNN: If I might explain—of course, the photograph was hanging on the wall, despite the fact that some members of the Opposition would prefer it to be otherwise. Suddenly, the photograph was missing; the council said that the photograph was lost or could not be found. If it had not been for the media and the Independent member who asked searching questions about this matter, the photograph would never have been found. The answers given by the Labor mayor who suggested that the photograph was not missing at all are interesting. The mayor said, "Oh, no, the photograph has been found. It was in the store-room, and it has been there all the time." Mr BURNS: I rise to a point of order. I again make the point that the Minister has been given another Dorothy Dixer. He is reading from a paper in order to answer a question that has been addressed to him. It is about time that the Ministers—if they persist in having Dorothy Dixers—have the questions placed on notice so that they can answer them in the right way. Mr SPEAKER: Order! No point of order has been made out. Mr GUNN: I notice that the honourable member always reads his questions, which are prepared for him by research officers who are provided by this Parliament. I now inform the House of the answers given by Alderman Freeman when he was asked whether he would hang the photograph on the wall. He said, "I didn't say that." Then Alderman Freeman lost his cool and he said to John Graham, the reporter— "Look if you want to make a bloody story out of that, you make a story out of it. You made a story out of nothing with the last one. . . You go for your bloody life." 1 emphasise that they are the words spoken by the mayor of the city of Ipswich. The mayor was recently pressed about the subject of hanging the photograph on the waU, and he said, "I don't give a damn if we put it up or not." It would be nice to know where members of the Opposition stand on this matter. Opposition Members interjected. Mr GUNN: It is obvious that members of the Opposition support the mayor of Ipswich. However, I support Alderman Conway in this matter. I point out that the Scout Association and the Girl Guide Association are experiencing difficulty in obtaining such photographs because the Federal Govemment has cut back on the distribution of flags and photographs. I make the suggestion that if the Ipswich City Council does not intend to hang the photograph on the wall, it should be donated to one of the organisations that would gladly do so. Camping Permits for Moreton Island and Fraser Island Mr BURNS: I ask the Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and The Arts: Is he aware of the problems being experienced by people when they attempt to obtain permits to camp on Moreton Island and Fraser Island? Is he aware, for example, that, if a person arrives on Moreton Island and wants to camp there that night, he is told when he applies for a permit that he should have applied for it before he left Brisbane and that, if he applies for a permit in Brisbane, he is told that he should apply for it at Tangalooma? Similarly, if a person in Brisbane applies for a permit to camp on Fraser Island, he is told to write to Maryborough for it. I ask: Will the Minister do something about the stupid bureacratic nonsense that forces people to go to a specific spot to apply for a permit instead of their being able to make an application at any office of the National Parks and Wildlife Service? 3350 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice

Mr McKECHNIE: The issuing of permits by the National Parks and Wildlife Service is being reorganised. I am aware of the problems, and endeavours are being made to solve them. I would say to the honourable member, however, that my National Parks and Wildlife Service generally does a tremendous job in administering the laws for which it is responsible. In regard to Moreton Island—the service has called for expressions of interest about two private enterprise camping areas on the ocean side in an effort to increase the number of campsites on the island. As to Fraser Island—I notice that the Opposition spokesman has moved for the disallowance of the regulations issued under the Fraser Island Public Access Act. That shows the sort of interest that ALP members have in caring for the island. Last week­ end, the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police and I were on Fraser Island trying to do something constmctive to initiate a clean-up of the island. Opposition members have done nothing but knock what the National Parks and WUdlife Service is trying to do in implementing the laws for which it is responsible. We will go forward Mr Burns: Answer the question. Mr McKECHNIE: I said that the matter is being reviewed. The review was already under way before the honourable member did his Uttle piece of grandstanding. Regardless of what he wants, the problem is being looked at.

National Institute of Economic and Industry Research Report on Economy Mr BURNS: In asking a question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the report on the State's economy that he commissioned from the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research and to the fact that the leading indicator series, which is designed to give an indication of economic trends over the next three to six months, does not contain any explicit indicators dealing with the mral sector. Given the importance of mral industries and the fact the the Premier's party pretends to represent them, I ask: Will the Premier explain why Queensland's mral sector was ignored in this report on the economy? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The honourable member would know that the group that compiled the report is also used by the New South Wales and Victorian Govemments. The figures that I cited yesterday were compiled on an overaU basis. They include everything Honourable Members interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, it covers Queensland as whole. There is none so blind as he who will not see. One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink. I cannot make the honourable member drink or understand that the survey covered Queensland as a whole. It included everything Mr Burns inteijected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has asked his question and it is now being answered. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I reiterate that it was an overall survey of Queens­ land. In case the honourable member does not know, that includes the mral areas. If the honourable member thinks that he can gain some kudos from mral people with his party's policy of one vote, one value and its support for all the wicked things that the people in Canberra have imposed on them, including capital gains taxes, and all the rest Mr Burns inteijected. Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3351 Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: The one-time Leader of the Opposition seems to think that he has made a special point. He has not. The survey covered the whole of Queensland. It showed that, over the past 15 years, Queensland's economy has performed better than that of any other State. Its performance has been well above the national average. It is as simple as that. Statement by Mr Keating on Business Mr BOOTH: In asking a question of the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to Mr Keating's description of Australian business as being a little lost. Is that intelligent comment or a comment by a Treasurer who is not a little lost but completely bushed? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is tme that Mr Keating has repeatedly tried to smooth over and camouflage the nation's problems. He has tried to deceive the people of this State and nation in regard to the economic situation. He has much to answer for because, under the Federal Treasurer, the Prime Minister and their Cabinet colleagues, Australia has suffered a tremendous defeat by dropping to twenty-third position in the world-rating of nations relative to living standards, production and so on. Mr Powell: And the bottom in cricket. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, we are at the bottom in cricket, but that has nothing to do with the Labor Party. However, I am sure that the Prime Minister was not present on the relevant day to congratulate our cricketers. It is a sad reflection on the Treasurer of this State, of this nation as a whole Opposition Members inteijected. SU JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: He is Treasurer of the whole of this nation, including Queensland. He plays a very important role in the economic growth that should be taking place. Today, the nation is finding out exactly what type of Treasurer he is. If anybody is bushed, it is he. No-one is more lost and out in the cold than Mr Keating, the Treasurer in Canberra. 1 want to make that clear and explicit. Soil Conservation Mr BOOTH: I ask the Minister for Primary Industries: Can he inform the House of the Govemment's future plans and intentions conceming soil conservation? With reference to works of community and general interest, has the Govemment studied the possibility of subsidies being provided for this work, which can be very costly for some land-holders and of very littie benefit to them? Will the Govemment reserve the right of appeal? Mr TURNER: Soil erosion is a serious problem in Australia. The State Govemment has addressed it in a very meaningful way. The Father committee was formed some time ago to look into soil conservation and report back to the Govemment. I have a soil conservation advisory committee comprising people from all facets of primary industries. The committee has been meeting to frame le^slation. It is currently before the pariiamentary draftsman. I had hoped to present it in this sittings of ParUament, but it will be presented early in next year's sittings. The State Govemment is contributing $6m for soil conservation in Queensland. That compares very well with the pittance of $4m that the Federal Govemment is contributing for soil conservation throughout Australia. We may look for greater assistance from the Commonwealth. A right of appeal will certainly be available, and subsidies are available to help with soil conservation. Public Trustee Mr VEIVERS: In asking the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General this question, I point out that, on 1 July this year, the Public Tmstee (Mr M. Nolan) retired. Applications for filling the position of Public Tmstee closed on 18 July. It is now 5 December, but 3352 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice no appointment to that important position in the public service has been announced. I now ask the Minister: Can he teU us why the disgraceful delay has occurred in naming the person to fill this important position, and how can the Govemment, when it is seen to be dUly-dallying over such an appointment, hope to maintain morale in the Queensland Pubic Service? Mr HARPER: I thank the honourable member for his question. A decision on the appointment of the Public Tmstee will be taken in due course. There is no difficulty in the PubUc Tmst Office at present, because there is an efficient acting PubUc Tmstee. The matter is one for consideration. I believe that honourable members would wish Queensland to have, appointed to this position, the most capable person available to the State. That is the Govemment's objective. Ultraviolet-block-out Creams and Lotions Mr VEIVERS: I point out to the Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology that, as no doubt he is aware, Queensland has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world attributable to exposure to the sun. Many utlraviolet-block-out creams and lotions are available on the market—and, as the Minister knows, they are good products—but, to the best of my knowledge, none are manufactured in Queensland. I now ask the Minister: With all the huffing and puffing by the Govemment about promoting the establishment of business in Queensland, and assuming the Minister agrees that Queensland is, and should be, a ready-made market for these products and should be to the forefront in their manufacture and distribution throughout Australia, what incentives, financial and otherwise, can the Minister provide a prospective manufacturer of these products to establish its operations in Queensland? Mr AHERN: The first substantial incentive that could be offered to this industry in Australia would be the removal of the 30 per cent sales tax that is applied by the Commonwealth Govemment. It is totally unreasonable, and the honourable member might take that matter up with his Federal counterparts. I am not aware of the relevant factories that might be interested in making this type of preparation, but I will make inquiries. Queensland offers a substantial range of incentives for manufacturing industries. For example, land is made avaUable on a concessional basis for industry. The concession represents a very substantial subsidy to industries estabUshing in Queensland. Queensland also has the capabiUty to build factories on a lease-back arrangement to the companies concerned, which means that for the organisation that is establishing in Queensland, a substantial amount of capital is not up-front. That also represents a very substantial concession. They are the two areas in which concessions apply. The Govemment has had considerable success in bringing manufacturing industries to Queensland, and I wiU be making some substantial announcements in this regard within the next two weeks. Mining Act Mr PRICE: In directing a question to the Minister for Mines and Energy, I refer to recent events in Mount Isa centring on a protracted strike at Mount Isa Mines by members of the Australian Workers Union over a safety-standards issue at Hilton mine that highlight deficiencies in the Mining Act. Had those deficiencies been addressed earlier, not only would the strike have been avoided but also a motion of no confidence by the workers in the Govemment's senior safety inspector would not have been taken. I now ask: Will the Minister inform the House when the deficiencies in the Act wUl be addressed with amending legislation? Mr I. J. GIBBS: The Mining Act is quite OK, and the inspectors acted properly in the incident to which the honourable member referred. They inspected the supposed cause of the strike and, I am told, issued in very quick time a full safety certificate for the underground room in question. Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3353

I suggest that the honourable member take a look at the AWU. It might be that the union's elections, which were on at the time, and the mmbUngs within the union had something to do with the strike. Indeed, I suggest that that was the reason for the stupidity of the whole affair. The same union tried similar tactics—that is, raising safety issues—on other mining sites throughout the State, including the remote Jackson field. I advise the honourable member to carry out further investigations to see where the weakness really is. It is certainly not in the Mining Act or within the Mines Department. If the honourable member wants further information, I wiU research the matters raised and give him a full answer conceming the real cause of the strike, which wiU include reference to the AWU. Mr PRICE: In accordance with the Minister's suggestion, I put the question on notice. My second question Mr I. J. GIBBS: I rise to a point of order. By putting the question on notice, it became the honourable member's second question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Mount Isa to ask his second question.

Presentation of Gifts to Premier and Treasurer Mr PRICE: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the presentation of gifts to him following official openings performed by him in his capacity as Premier, namely, a Kawasaki motor cycle; a $600 tool kit; a solid gold salver; and a massive desk and accompanying large chair. I now ask: Are such presentation gifts bequeathed by the Premier to the Govemment? Is he aware that Federal Ministers must declare any gifts worth more than $250, and that if they wish to keep them, they must pay the balance? Is the Premier aware that this practice has been adopted by Liberal- National Party Govemments and Labor Govemments in Canberra? What guide-lines exist for Ministers of this State who receive official gifts, particularly when the receipt of such expensive gifts occurs regularly and might constitute income under the guise of services rendered? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: In his question, the member for Mount Isa referred to what is done and not done in Canberra. I certainly do not take a jet from Canberra and fly up to the islands for a holiday to do a bit of fishing. I do not fly overseas on holidays in a jet in the way the people in Canberra do. They are overseas on holidays all the time. The honourable member would know that they do not pay and they do not declare that as income. I know that the honourable member is jealous. He would like to be Premier and get some recognition, but he cannot. I am sorry for him. He never will be Premier. He has no hope. I feel sorry for him. Horse Stables, Gladstone Mr PREST: I ask the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing: As the Gladstone City Council has threatened the Gladstone Turf Club with a demolition order on the stables at Ferguson Park, as 56 horses are stabled in them, as the city by­ laws will not allow stables to be built in the city area and as the demolition of these stables will virtually destroy racing in Gladstone and will have a serious effect on racing in other centres, mainly Rockhampton, and remembering the agreement reached by the Minister with the Gladstone City Council and the Gladstone Turf Club in April 1982, what action will he take to assist the Gladstone Turf Club and racing in that area? Mr HINZE: I am aware of the problem in relation to the stabUng of horses at Gladstone. I will contact the Gladstone City Council to indicate to them that I accept that there is a responsibility there. I will do that forthwith. 3354 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice

Vandalism near Wests Leagues Club Mr MILLER: Before I ask my question of the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, I wish to inform the House that, because I believed this to be the last day of sitting, I gave a copy of this question to the Minister last night. Is the Minister aware that a pop concert was held last Sunday week at Wests Leagues Club, Bardon, and that that concert had the approval of the Brisbane City CouncU? Can the Minister advise whether any residents of the local area made any complaints to police because of the noise generated by this concert or because of any breaking-in of properties and/or vehicles before and after that concert. If any complaints were made, can the Minister advise what and how many charges were laid in relation to the alleged offences and against how many people? Can the Minister advise whether the Brisbane City CouncU informed the Police Department prior to this event that it was being held, and did the council convey, in any way, advice to the police on how crowds might be handled before, during and after that concert? Did the police remove a Queensland Govemment vehicle issued to a senior Govemment officer and parked on that officer's private property near the concert venue because that clearly identified vehicle had been vandalised and because police feared that further vandalism or theft would be committed? Mr GLASSON: The answer to the first part of the honourable member's question is, "Yes". Mr Davis: How can he answer a question like this? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Brisbane Central- Mr DAVIS: I move— "That the Minister table the document." Honourable Members interjected. Mr DAVIS: That is a perfectly correct thing to do. Mr GLASSON: The honourable member might move it, but he won't get it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr GLASSON: Mr Speaker, in answer to the question Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the honourable member repeat his motion? I did not believe it could come up. Mr DAVIS: I move— "That the Minister table the document that he is reading from." I can do that any time I like. I am doing it now Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am well aware of that. Motion (Mr Davis) negatived. MR SPEAKER: Order! I bring to the attention of the honourable member for Brisbane Central that I consider such a point of order at this time of the day, or at any time at all, to be very frivolous. The honourable member knows what I mean. I ask the Minister to proceed. Mr DAVIS: I rise to a point of order. As a member of this Chamber, I have the right at any time to move any motion I like. It is up to the House to deal with it. Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3355

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I also point out to the honourable member that if he starts a contest with me, I assure him that I will win. Mr Casey inteijected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Mackay. Mr GLASSON: The honourable member for Mackay and other members of the Opposition complain about wasting the time of this House. If what we have just experienced is not the greatest waste of time of all, I do not know what is. The honourable member for Ithaca (Mr Miller) has every right to seek this information. Because there was no question-time yesterday, I have prepared an answer in five parts. Mr Casey interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I wam the honourable member for Mackay under Standing Order No. 123A. I ask the Minister to continue with his reply. Mr GLASSON: My answer to the second part of the honourable member's question is "Yes." Police received complaints of band noise, an offence of break and enter and offences of stealing, wilful damage to property and attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle. In answer to the third part of the honourable member's question—one youth has been charged with one offence of wilful damage to property and two offences of attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle. In answer to the fourth part of the honourable member's question—police were advised by the Brisbane City Council of the issue of the permit. No advice as to expected crowds was given, but police attention was given to the event. In answer to the fifth part of the honourable member's question—a Govemment vehicle was the subject of damage, and the youth referred to in the third part of my answer was charged with this offence and attempted unlawful use of the motor vehicle. Police took necessary action at the scene in relation to the vehicle. Fringe-benefits Tax; Action by Australian Democrats Mr ALISON: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to the back-down by the Australian Democrats on keeping a tight rein on the Hawke Govemment's tax package. I ask: Does that mean that they have abandoned their much publicised pledge of keeping the Govemment honest? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: It is well-known across Australia that the Democrats had nothing on which to campaign, so they campaigned on the basis, "Keep us there to keep the b's honest." That was their campaign, their slogan and their attitude. They lied to the people of Australia. They have not kept their word at any time. They sleep with the Federal Govemment; they work with it; and they support it practically all the time. On all issues that are anti-Queensland, the Democrats vote against us. The Democrats voted with the Labor Govemment on the matter of the ETU strike and the legislation in respect of it. They voted to tum off the lights in this State. Let us never forget that the Democrats are anti-Queensland, particularly anti country people. Mr Campbell interjected. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: They are anti the honourable member, too. Expenses Incurred by Secretary, Queensland Greyhound Racing Control Board Mr R. J. GIBBS: In directing a question to the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, I refer to his answer given on 3 December to a question asked by the honourable member for Bundaberg (Mr Campbell) conceming the expenses of 3356 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice

the secretary of the Greyhound Racing Control Board of Queensland, Mr Max Mason. I draw to the Minister's attention that in his answer, which was tabled in this House, he said that Mason's expenses for travelling for the financial year 1984-85 were $8,706, yet the document tabled in this House shows that the total expenses for the secretary of the board for that same period were $163. I draw to the Minister's attention that Mr Mason's traveUing expenses in 1983-84 were $6,869, yet his expenses for that period were $676.20. I again ask the Minister: WiU he table in this Parliament all receipted expenditure paid to the secretary of the Greyhound Racing Control Board, because it is not conceivable that a person can spend the sum of money referred to on traveUing throughout this State, yet incur only $600 expenses? I ask the Minister to have those expenses properly investigated and tabled in this House. Will the Minister not give further consideration to my constant calls for Mr Justice Sheahan to be appointed as the head of a racing appeals tribunal to carry out a full, independent inquiry into the greyhound-racing industry in this State? Mr HINZE: It is obvious from the concem that he has shown that the honourable member for Wolston has not understood my answers. I have made an inquiry about the $8,000-odd. I have been informed that the majority of those funds were used in the purchase of airline tickets. However, I undertake to obtain a clearer picture of the expenditure in this regard and to table that information in this Parliament for the interest of all honourable members. In regard to the request made by the honourable member for Wolston regarding Mr Justice Sheahan—as the honourable member would be aware, Mr Justice Sheahan is the chairman of the Racing Appeals Commission. That appeals commission hears appeals from licensed persons who have been the subject of stewards' decisions. At this stage, I have not received a request from the various principal bodies for the Govemment to take the matter further. It is worthy of consideration. However, at this stage the Govemment has decided not to take it any further.

Unofficial Use of Government Aircraft by Premier and Treasurer Mr R. J. GIBBS: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to comments made by him this moming—one of several references—about the Prime Minister indulging recently in one game of golf I ask: When the Premier has been working on his son's property, the Ten Mile, on ordinary working days, has he been flown to the property by the Govemment aircraft and the Govemment pilot? If so, how many tens of thousands of dollars have been squandered by the Premier for that purpose, which is a personal indulgence at public expense? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: For most of my life—just on 30 years—I have been involved in politics. Mr R. J. Gibbs: I don't want most of your life; I want now. Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I will answer the question in my way. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 30 years. My family have grown up. I hardly ever see them, except on odd week-ends. I do not go home more than about every second or third week-end. That has been the case all through my life. I have dedicated myself to serving the community, the State generally and the nation. Perhaps at a later date this Govemment will do more for the benefit of the nation. Occasionally I am able to go home. Sometimes I decide to visit my son. Perhaps two or three times a year I visit my son's property in central Queensland. I will not crawl there. I cannot get there and back by motor car. It is logical for me to fly to his property. Sometimes my son takes me up there. Occasionally Mr R. J. Gibbs: In the Govemment aircraft with the Govemment pilot? Questions Without Notice 5 December 1985 3357 Su- JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: Yes, I have travelled to my son's property in the Govemment aircraft, and I will keep on going home at least now and again. Regardless of what the honourable member for Wolston has said, I will not be denied the opportunity of occasionally spending a little time with my family after 38 years in public life. Marine Parks Mr BORBIDGE: In directing a question to the Premier and Treasurer, I refer to a report by the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare and the threat to marine parks, such as Sea World, if the recommendations of the report are adopted. 1 now ask: Can he assure the Senate that magnificent tourist and research facilities, such as Sea World, are safe in Queensland, despite any possible threat to them by Senator Georges in his capacity as resident spokesman for fringe minority activist groups? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I assure the honourable member and the House in general that those people have no jurisdiction, responsibility or authority over this State. I have read, with amusement, some of the committee's statements, investigations and inquiries. However, the effect is nil. This Govemment will make the decisions covering every aspect of prevention of cmelty. This Govemment supports the activities of the appropriate organisation and is determined to continue that course. I was surprised that, in the report of the committee with which Senator Georges was involved, no mention was made that it was also cmel to gaol a member of Parliament. I thought that that might have been included as one of those things that should not be permitted. It is permitted, and it will occur in the future, too. Actions by Police Officer at Road Riders Motor Cycle Club Party, Dayboro Mr MACKENROTH: In directing a question to the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, I refer to the matter that I raised in the Parliament yesterday, namely, the Dayboro bikie raid, and the fact that one of the commissioned officers who was present at that raid was the officer who undertook the investigation. I now ask: What action did he take relative to the matters that I raised yesterday? Mr GLASSON: I am aware of the matters raised yesterday by the honourable member for Chatsworth, the Opposition spokesman on police matters, in the debate on matters of public interest, that is, the investigation that took place into what has been referred to as the Dayboro bikie raid. As the Opposition spokesman is well aware, the investigations were drawn out because several people had to be interviewed. I took note of the interview that the honourable member had yesterday on Channel 7's State Affair, in which he cast aspersions on the integrity of Queensland police officers. The honourable member is not aware of Mr Walker's involvement in the initial raid and subsequently; nor am I at this stage; but, in the time available this moming, I have requested the information. The matter has been referred to the PoUce Complaints Tribunal. I sincerely hope that the statements made in the interview televised last night were not intended to cast aspersions on the integrity of the Police Complaints Tribunal, which wiU investigate the complaints made and the concems raised. The matter was referred to that tribunal long before the Opposition spokesman raised it yesterday. Indeed, I gave him a copy of a document addressed to me and signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and I believe that he broke faith by tabling that document. There was nothing in the document to hide but, in principle, that action was fairly low, considering that I had handed him a copy of the document. He has broken faith. Proposed Drug Legislation; Penalties for Marijuana-growing Mr MACKENROTH: In directing a question to the Minister for Lands, Forestry and Police, I refer to the stories in this moming's press about dmg legislation that he proposes to introduce today and ask: Will the 25-year gaol sentences A Government Member: It's not even in the House. 3358 5 December 1985 Questions Without Notice

Mr MACKENROTH: It is in the newspaper. Everyone can read it. Information has been given to the newspapers. I ask: WiU the 25-year gaol sentences also apply to people who have marijuana growing on their properties? Mr GLASSON: I should not really have to comment on this matter, Mr Speaker. I thought that you would have mled it out of order. Quite obviously, it is out of order. I have no intention of making any comment on the proposed legislation untU it is introduced into the House this aftemoon. You would be aware, Mr Speaker, that that question is out of order, and I have no intention of commenting on it. Mr MACKENROTH: I rise to a point of order. The Minister said that my question is out of order. That question is not out of order. I may ask the Minister to comment on legislation that he proposes to bring before the House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr MACKENROTH: I ask, Mr Speaker, that you ask the Minister to answer the question. The Minister said that the question was out of order. It is not up to him to mle on whether or not a question is out of order. It is up to you, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is the prerogative of the Minister to answer the question as he sees fit. No point of order has been made out. Compulsory Superannuation Schemes Mr JENNINGS: I ask the Premier and Treasurer: Is he aware of statements emanating from the president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (Mr Simon Crean) that encourage strike action to be taken by unions across Australia in an effort to bludgeon business into accepting compulsory superannuation schemes that will be controlled by unions and provide for employers to contribute 3 per cent of the salaries of the staff, which amounts to a straight-out unwarranted wage rise that cannot be afforded by this country? In view of the increased costs that will result, the increasingly adverse effect on the value of the Australian dollar, and the increase in inflation that will result—thereby causing the traditional financial processes of this country to become unstable—will the Premier and Treasurer advise the House whether he regards this serious industrial blackmail by the president of the ACTU as an attempt by Mr Simon Crean and certain other union officials to gain control of enormous amounts of superannuation funds, with the object of using such funds to destroy private enterprise companies, in accordance with the trade union objectives and those of the Hawke Govemment, and to make Australia a socialist state? Sir JOH BJELKE-PETERSEN: I am sure that everybody is amazed that Simon Crean, together with the Australian Labor Party, is bent on pursuing a policy of obtaining greater concessions, such as those of the kind and magnitude that are currentiy being embarked upon. According to the media, Simon Crean has indicated that strike action may be taken in an attempt to force people into the scheme. I say in this place that Simon Crean and members of the Australian Labor Party can do what they want to, when they want to and how they want to; but when the time comes for the next election, they may go one way and the Queensland National Party Govemment will go in the opposite direction. One of the things to which I will dedicate myself is making sure that the scheme, if it is introduced, will be thrown out at the next election. I invite all honourable members to wait and see whether that happens, and I bet it will.

Rail Industry Council Mr JENNINGS: I ask the Minister for Transport: Is he aware of the proposal by the Commonwealth Govemment to establish a rail industry council? If so, will he advise the House of the ramifications? End of Session Dinner 5 December 1985 3359

Mr LANE: This aftemoon, my colleague the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) and I wUl travel to Hobart to attend a meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council. That council comprises State and Federal Ministers of transport and roads. A matter that has just been placed on the agenda—at the last moment—by the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) asks that consideration be given by the council to a proposal to establish a rail industry council. The council will consist of representatives from all railway systems that operate in Australia, which means seven representatives in all. It is proposed that there will be a representative from the Federal Department of Transport, one representative of the AustraUan Council of Trade Unions, and seven representatives of the State Labor councils and rail unions of Australia. Honourable members may be interested to know that members of the trade union movement will have the numbers on this proposed council. I would like to answer the matter in more detail, and I ask that it be placed on notice for next Tuesday. Mr JENNINGS: I do so accordingly.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr INNES (Sherwood) (12.24 p.m.), by leave: This moming, the Minister for Environment, Valuation and Administrative Services (Mr Tenni) referred, in a prepared statement, to the matter of the desk calendar refills. The Minister accused me of tampering with the evidence. In the course of attempting to build a case about me, the Minister said— "Spicers, in a letter sent last month to the Board, acknowledged the fact that the paper sample it had submitted with the April, 1985 tender was of a poorer quality." The Minister tabled that document. I invite the attention of honourable members to that brief letter and point out that the only comments that the letter makes about previous samples or quality of paper are as follows— "At the time your quotation was called we were unable to submit the finished product, and we presume this is why we lost the contract

The purpose of sending this refill is that should we have a price advantage again next year you will know our product is of a satisfactory standard." The letter goes on to state— "It is appreciated you may have had problems in the past with poor quality Calendar Refills, but we hope after inspecting this sample you will find ours does not come into this category." This morning, the Minister asserted that the letter he tabled contained an acknowledgement by Spicers that the paper sample it had submitted was of poor quality. On the contrary, Spicers asserts that its paper is not of the poor quality of others that it knows the State Stores had received. Because the Minister read from a prepared statement, he has misled the House by attributing to a document something that it does not contain.

END OF SESSION DINNER Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, owing to plans made previously by many honourable members for next Tuesday, I issue an invitation to all honourable members to join with me and all the staff of Parliament House for dinner in the Parliamentary Annexe tonight at 6.15. 3360 5 December 1985 Bills: Remaining Stages BILLS: REMAINING STAGES Suspension of Standing Orders Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House), by leave, without notice: I move— "That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would otherwise prevent the Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill and the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) from being taken through their remaining stages at this day's sitting." Mr WARBURTON (Sandgate—Leader of the Opposition) (12.26 p.m.): Nobody can deny that the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) is a very complex piece of legislation. It was introduced into the House only yesterday by the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General (Mr Harper). The House did not rise until 1.30 this moming, and it must be apparent to all thinking people that it is impossible for anyone in this place, irrespective of his competence, to make a proper assessment of the Bill's contents in the time that this National Party Govemment intends to allow before it is debated. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Opposition has been prepared to assist in respect of some of those BiUs that have required only machinery alteration, but we are not about to accept this sausage-machine approach that has become the hallmark of this National Party Govemment every time we approach the end of a parliamentary session. To force this type of complex legislation—it contains 32 amendments in 24 pages—through this House is a display of complete arrogance on the part of the Govemment. I remind the Govemment that the Act to which these amendments wiU apply has already been amended on at least three occasions since it was mshed through this place by the Premier and Treasurer (Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen) late last year. That was done despite my wamings at the time that the original legislation was completely deficient and would need amendment in the early stages of 1986. The Opposition vigorously opposes the motion. That it is necessary to move it today is indicative of this Govemment's arrogance and incompetence. Hon. Sir WILLIAM KNOX (Nundah) (12.29 p.m.): This moming, I was given to understand that the Opposition intended to agree to this proposal. I now understand that it will not do so. Mr Warburton: Who told you that? Sir WILLIAM KNOX: The Leader of the House informed me that the Opposition had agreed. Opposition Members interjected. Sir WILLIAM KNOX: Obviously I was misinformed. I make the point that in the case of the two Bills concemed, the alteration to the arrangements is quite satisfactory, but pushing them through is not satisfactory. It has never been satisfactory to have Bills that have been in existence for some days pushed through the House on the last day of the session. Because of newspaper commentaries on what was about to happen, the Liberal Party has known that the BiUs have been in existence for some time, as have all members. The Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill has been about for some time, yet it appears in the House at very short notice. In the case of the Mortages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2), this is the fourth occasion on which legislation on this subject has been mshed through the House. On the first occasion, the Liberal Party and the Opposition agreed to the Bill's coming into the House, and passing through all its stages in one day, only because it was said to be urgent. Bills: Remaining Stages 5 December 1985 3361 The Govemment of the time wanted to get it under way because of moves in other parts of Australia, and we all agreed to put the legislation through urgently. But no such proposal has come before us on this occasion; certainly, no proposal has been put to me about this legislation being required urgently. In the case of Bills of this nature that have been in existence for some time, it is not satisfactory to put them on the table of the House and then ask members to debate them at short notice. That is particularly so relative to item 2, which is compUcated legislation and requires special study and special advice. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (12.31 p.m.): In speaking to the motion, I should say that I am surprised at any opposition coming from the Liberal Party. The Opposition, of course, is trying to protect its comrades in the southem States. Opposition members know full weU that Queensland is leading Australia in this sphere of the financial economy and is mnning rings round the other States. Obviously, Opposition members would Uke to have the legislation deferred to give their comrades in the southem States a little more time to try to catch up with Queensland. I take exception to the suggestion that the legislation has been available for some time. In fact, the Opposition spokesman on justice matters knows that the final print of the Bill was not available to the House until late last night. Mr Warburton: Is that an excuse for a breach of the Standing Orders? Mr HARPER: Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition is not in touch with his front-bench members. I paid the Opposition spokesman on justice matters the courtesy of discussing the matter with him early yesterday aftemoon. Admittedly, I did not afford the Liberal Party the same opportunity. The Opposition spokesman was given an opportunity to pemse the legislation before the Bill was finally drafted. I understand the reason behind the Opposition's ploy. Opposition members want to give New South Wales and Victoria a few more months to try to catch up with Queensland in the area of secondary mortgage market development. Hon. C. A. WHARTON (Bumett—Leader of the House) (12.32 p.m.), in reply: I discussed the matter this moming with the member for Port Curtis (Mr Prest). We were to have an agreement. I expect that honourable members opposite will be able to make certain points during the debate. An agreement was reached that the Govemment could bring on this measure. Mr Warburton: Come on, now! Mr WHARTON: There was an agreement, man to man. I assure the Leader of the Opposition of that, and I will say no more. Question—That the motion (Mr Wharton) be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 43 NOES, 31 Ahem Lester Braddy Vaughan Alison Lingard Bums Veivers Austin Littleproud CampbeU Warburton Bailey McKechnie Casey Wamer, A. M Bjelke-Petersen McPhie D'Arcy White Booth Menzel Eaton Yewdale Borbidge Miller Fouras CahUl Muntz Gibbs, R. J. Chapman Newton Goss Clauson Powell Gygar Cooper Randell HamUl Elliott Row Innes FitzGerald Simpson Knox Gibbs, I. J. Stephan Kruger Glasson Stoneman Lee Gunn Tenni Lickiss Harper Tumer Mackenroth Harvey Wharton McElligott Henderson MiUiner Hinze Palaszczuk Jennings Tellers: Price Tellers: Katter Kaus Shaw Davis Lane Neal Underwood Prest Resolved in the affirmative.

69066—113 3362 5 December 1985 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BUI (No. 2)

MORTGAGES (SECONDARY MARKET) ACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 4 December (see p. 3300) on Mr Harper's motion— "That the BiU be now read a second time." Mr GOSS (SaUsbury) (12.40 p.m.): In rising to speak to the BiU, I support the comments of the Leader of the Opposition a short time ago. Those comments and the conduct of this legislation are anotiier example of the artogance and incompetence of this Govemment when it comes to the ParUament and the important business of the ParUament. The Minister made a point of saying that, last night, he had given me a copy of the legislation—no speech or notes, but a copy of the legislation. As he also weU knows, I was in the Chamber most of the evening debating two other BiUs and that I reaUy had no adequate opportunity to examine the legislation in any detaU or to see how it would fit into the overaU framework that has already been estabUshed. That framework is the original, iU

Also, on the advice that I have received, it is ludicrous to expect this market to get off the ground in any meaningful way when the main potential operators in the market are restricted by refusing to give tmstee status as is required. That, in itself, shows everyone just what a hiU-billy approach to the secondary mortgage market this Govemment has adopted. So, effectively, the Queensland Govemment is preventing the downward pressure on interest rates for housing finance by failing to give buUding societies tmstee status, by which they could package their own mortgages and thereby increase the flow of funds to Queensland for housing. In AprU this year, when speaking to the second amending BUI on the secondary mortgage market to come before this House, my predecessor, the member for Wolston (Mr R. J. Gibbs), stated very succinctly that the Queensland legislation only allowed for the development of the market in Queensland in connection with pass-through securities. At the time the Attomey-General did not contradict that, and I am pleased to say that these new amendments to the Act specificaUy address that issue. Honourable members will be aware that there are two basic types of mortgage security. The first is securities that carry the whole of the beneficial entitlement under a mortgage. These are called pass-through securities, and they can operate effectively only on a basis of interest-only mortgages. The second is mortgage securities where the certificate-holders' entitlements are less than the total entitlements under the mortgage. These are called participation certificates and are usually based on overcoUateraUsed bills or mortgages. This type of security, which the Queensland legislation excluded, is particularly relevant and useful for a building society. What is very clear from the amendments now proposed—in the Umited time that Opposition members have had to consider them—is that the committee that undertook the investigation of the secondary mortgage market did a very poor job. It failed to define adequately the various forms of securities available in the market, and the Queensland Govemment itself, through its own inaction, has actually prevented the major likely participants in the market, that is, the buUding societies, fi^om receiving tmstee status and packaging their own mortgage-backed securities. No wonder Queensland is the laughing-stock of Australia, when the Premier gets up and claims that he wants to make Brisbane the financial capital of Australia. The Premier has rightly kept his nose out of the financial affairs of this State since he became a laughing-stock over his attempt to make Brisbane Australia's financial capital by abolishing stamp duty on share transfers. At the time, the Opposition pointed out to the Govemment in great detail the mechanism by which this legislation could be circumvented. The Govemment did not listen to the Opposition, and it was only after the Victorian Govemment was about to introduce legislation that would have effectively closed down the Brisbane Stock Exchange that the Premier backed down and ran away with his head between his knees. That magnificent piece of legislation was also the result of recommendations from a National Party committee rather than from State Treasury. The legislation now before the House is a replay of the same fiasco. As I said at the outset, the Queensland secondary mortgage market has been as dead as a dodo since it was launched by the Premier. It is about time that this Govemment forgot about public relations and how it is leading the country—people in financial circles know that that is not tme—and faced up to the reality and addressed the real problems with some meaningful solutions. This is the third time the Attomey-General has brought out the oxygen mask to try to put some life into the Queensland market. If the Govemment knew what it was doing, there would be no need for this last-minute msh. The Bill was introduced last night and is being mshed through before anybody has had a realistic opportunity of considering it in detail and comparing it with the previous legislation. In comparison with the secondary mortgage market in Queensland, the secondary mortgage market in Victoria and New South Wales, particularly in Victoria, has made Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 5 December 1985 3365

great strides and is well on the way to becoming established and accepted. Victoria's Aussie Macs are well-known and accepted. Queensland's Queenie Macs cannot be said to be well-known. In fact, I venture to say that members of the National Party back­ bench would think the Queenie Mac must be a new variety of McDonald's hamburgers— a smaller version of the Big Mac. I would also venture to say that perhaps part of the problem of seUing Queenie Macs to the Queensland market has something to do with the name. Mr Elliott: I don't think you've got a very great future. Mr GOSS: The honourable member for Cunningham is the last person who should talk about anybody having a future or the futures market. He is a good example of somebody who has been there for a very short time, never to rise again. I will move on from the irrelevant member for Cunningham. After the Attomey-General's recent legislation to ban deviants from Queensland bars, perhaps no self-respecting Queenslander would be caught dead buying a bond with the name Queenie Mac for fear that he might be the subject of that legislation. Mr FitzGerald: Do you stiU drink with your friends? Mr GOSS: I can no longer drink with the honourable member for Lockyer, because he is not allowed into any of the hotels in which I drink. Perhaps the Attomey-General should give consideration to changing the name of these bonds in order to give them a more masculine and less deviant connotation. Indeed, it would not surprise me to see such a superficial response from this Govemment in relation to the problems of the market. It would certainly be in keeping with the superficial response and superficial legislation that Opposition members have witnessed up to the present in the whole sad and incompetent history of the Queensland secondary mortgage market. Mr INNES (Sherwood) (12.54 p.m.): As the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) said on this occasion so justifiably, this is another illustration of the sorts of problems that the Govemment gets into Isecause of its preoccupation with hype and public relations—announce it, announce it again, look as though action is being taken and do not worry about what is being done. The first piece of legislation passed all stages in the one day on 19 September 1984. It was announced with a flurry—with a fanfare—as this great, new, first in Australia secondary mortgage market. The concept has existed for a long time. Very simply it relates to the $2.5 billion that, in this State alone, for instance, is tied up in mortgages. It was the intention to release that money so that, hopefully, it could be recycled by buUding societies for further loans. There was fanfare and flurry, and haste to be the first in Australia. Financial matters, of their very nature, are complicated. Mortgages are of great importance, as they back the fundamental and basic transaction of most famiUes in the State. If the Govemment does not get the legislation right, it does not work. People either are misled or avoid it because it cannot be used practically. What happened? By 27 November, two short months later, the legislation was back in the House, accompanied by the sort of ringing words that we have come to expect in second-reading speeches. I think that the writer of the Minister's second-reading speeches has a formula in the word processor. Only two months after the Premier had announced it as a great initiative, came from the Minister the words— "It is my privUege to introduce into this Chamber legislation that wiU ensure that Queensland remains the most dynamic free enterprise State in the Common­ wealth and will accelerate Brisbane's position as a major financial centre in Australia." The sentiment is laudable, but one thing that people in finance know is that, unless a person has a sophisticated mind, unless he has a bit of inteUigence, ability and nous, and unless the stmcture and the legislation are right, the intention, plan and purpose are defeated. 3366 5 December 1985 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BiU (No. 2)

The first people to smeU out problems in legislation are those who are ordering their financial affairs. Top-flight brains are analysing everything to ascertain whether the legislation can be used or whether it wiU mn into difficulties. Of course, within two months, back it came before the House. On that occasion, honourable members had two days in which to consider it. The second-reading speech was delivered on 27 November and, because of the impending Christmas msh, the dabate resumed on 28 November. It is just not good enough. The Minister, by now, is becoming fairly familiar with the routine. We gave him wamings over the Land Sales BiU, which he ignored. Haste, trouble, rethink; haste, trouble, rethink. The Govemment has had three goes at that legislation. The secondary mortgage market legislation is now before the Parliament for the fourth time. Within 24 hours, the House has had before it a three-goes piece of legislation and a four-goes piece of legislation. Mr Lee: I think top-flight Ted had a lot to do with this. Mr INNES: One would not rely on Sir Edward Lyons for any sophisticated legal drafting. Anybody can have a good idea. The proposal to release moneys tied up in mortgages, particularly by the buUding societies, was a good idea. Nobody objects to that. The reality is that working out the stmctures takes brains, takes consultation, takes time and takes criticism—none of which happened in the initial phases of the legislation. On 9 April, five months later, the legislation was back in the House again. On that occasion, a period of three days was made avaUable for those interested to consider the legislation. Again, it was a minimal amount of time. We know that the Govemment gets it wrong. It has demonstrated that overwhelmingly. If it wants the assistance of honourable members with wider sets of contacts who can bring different perspectives with them—nobody is suggesting that any one of us is in contact with all knowledge and with all that is right in legislation—it ought to allow sufficient time for consideration by the House so that people may be consulted and provide constmctive, beneficial proposals that would enable the legislation to work. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m. Mr INNES: Before the luncheon recess, I was referring to the number of times that this legislation has been before the House and to the consistency with which the time allowed for considering the Bills has been reduced, in some cases, to as Uttle as a single day. This legislation will be the second piece of legislation in that category which has been dealt with in a day. If legislation that is dealt with in a day were proven to be totaUy effective, one could not complain; but because this is the fourth such Bill that has been brought before the House in 13 months, it is clear that that course is not totally effective. Therefore, one can justifiably criticise the Govemment for ineffectual drafting and for the fact that the legislation seems to be adversely affected by the method that is used to develop it. If the legislation had been avaUable for consideration over a longer period, frequent amendments would not be necessary. The complaint made by honourable members about being given insufficient time to consider the BUI is justifiable. It is not good enough for the Govemment to bring into the House mere concepts and then say, "Ignore the legislation, because the concept is right; therefore, pass whatever is put before you." I am sure that I speak for almost every honourable member when I say that insufficient time has been given to enable honourable members to read the legislation, which purports to carry into effect the concepts referted to by the Minister in his second- reading speech. The situation I have described is an appaUing one. Honourable members should not only approve of the concepts, but should also participate in the proceedings that foUow the introduction of the legislation. The purpose of the Committee stage should be directed towards the examination of the way in which the words of the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BiU (No. 2) 5 December 1985 3367 legislation carry into effect the concepts and intentions that wiU result in the legislation's being fully effective. As I said previously, if the Queensland Govemment wishes to claim an element of sophistication in matters of a financial nature, it is necessary for the Govemment to produce sophisticated and modem legislation—not the thought of new and modem legislation, but the reality of effective, modem and competently drafted legislation. The market cannot derive confidence if it is transacting business in a State that seUs a concept or a new idea and then discovers that the idea cannot be brought into effect, because the legislation wiU jeopardise attempts made to pursue new courses of action. Apparently, many people have shown an interest in this legislation. Members of the Liberal Party accept the figures that have been brought forward by the Minister. Dozens of institutions would like to avaU themselves of a fuUy effective and fully operational secondary mortgage market. The establishment of a secondary mortgage market is in Une with what had been spoken about for many years prior to the announcement of the Govemment's proposal. However, the reality of access to funds has been a matter of considerable debate. I understand that the market that is presentiy avaUable is large. Because of the deficiencies that occur in the legislative process, and if ParUament accepts responsibUity for the quality of its corporate legislation—as it must—part of the reason for missing the boat is that the first package of legislation was inadequate, as was the second. The Govemment is about to launch its fourth attempt at producing effective legislation and having it introduced into a market-place in which the sale of mortgages is simply not attractive and is not on. A mortgage market is based on the sale of concluded relationships with fixed rates of interest, and the rates of interest are controlled by legislation. It is weU known that the rates of interest are 6 per cent lower than those that are available at the moment from other established and secure investment organisations. So, if one talks to anybody associated with the working part of mortgage life—people in buUding societies—they wiU say that the secondary mortgage market just cannot and will not fire at the moment, and cannot do so until interest rates come down to a level that makes them an attractive investment. The machinations of the Federal Parliament will be such that I fear that interest rates wUl remain high for at least another year. The legislation has been in operation since November last year, when the position was more attractive, and a few miUion doUars worth of mortgages was parcelled up and dealt with then. Those people who had the interest in a market climate that was far more favourable found themselves confronted by some of the practical problems that this legislation is intended to redress. The legislation wiU be improved if the drafting reflects the concepts announced by the Minister in his second-reading speech. I certainly do not pretend to have had time to check the legislation against what the Minister said it would do. I gather from the member for SaUsbury that he has not had any significant time to check that the legislation mirrors what the Minister said it wiU achieve. If it achieves all the things that are intended, unfortunately it does so in a market situation that is absolutely not responsive even to modem problem-free secondary mortgage market legislation. So the $2.5 biUion curtentiy tied up in Queensland building society mortgages wiU not be readUy available to provide a spur to the further commercial development that this legislation was intended to achieve. Because of national financial ramifications, that situation is likely to continue. I support the Govemment in the concepts behind the legislation, but I want to take strong issue with the member for Salisbury and the Labor Party and say that the track that the Queensland Govemment is pursuing is the preferable one. A regulatory type of approach to the secondary mortgage market is more attractive to the industry and to buUding societies than the creation of special trading companies that specialise in the maintenance of, and operation in, the secondary mortgage market. In effect, that is what has happened in the south. The Liberal Party very strongly supports the track chosen 3368 5 December 1985 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) by the Queensland Govemment. But, whichever track it chooses, the lines have to be firm, the points have to be set and the signals have to be working. That is, unfortunately, what we are involved in today. One of the most important changes that this legislation addresses is the extension of the definition of the mortgages involved in transactions. The previous legislation confined the transactions to the actual exchange of paper—the documents evidencing the mortgage. Because of numerous real difficulties, that simply was not practicable. If one is going into a market situation—if one is in effect going into the money market rather than individualised transactions or conveyancing transactions—it is the debt that the mortgage represents that is being traded, and it is really being amalgamated into the purchase of a type of security with an interest rate making a package rather than, shall we say, dealing with a sale from A to B with an attendant mortgage. People simply do not want to be involved in bundling 10 or 100 mortgage documents together and shipping them round the countryside. So an equitable assignment, that is, the assignment of the debt and the transaction, but leaving the mortgage document in some other place, was always the best and most desirable way to go. That is a very important improvement. If the words of the legislation back up the concept of the Minister's second-reading speech, it is one of the most important proposals brought to the House by the Minister. After reading the legislation quickly in the very short time available, I believe that all the other proposals seem to be in line with what a satisfactory market will request or need. On this occasion, we have no reservation in supporting what the Minister said the legislation is intended to achieve. Any reservation that we might have has been caused by our having had no chance to examine the legislation that carries out the intention. We have reason to fear that similar occurrences in the past have led to the problems that the Minister is now seeking to resolve. We hope that this legislation works, because we wish Queensland to have an effective secondary mortgage market. Indeed, we wished that originally. We hope that future refinements will be put into effect after wide consultation, particularly with the building society industry, which is the biggest source of mortgages. That industry has every right to be consulted. The Govemment has every reason to consult with it extensively in the development of the market. It is tragic that, because of an accident of time, the market is now being properly launched by way of effective legislation in a climate where it simply will not take off. Last year, the southem States benefited and got ahead by a less-effective device that was more fully developed. We suspect that all the secondary mortgage markets wiU be affected by the realities of the overall commercial climate. We wish the legislation well, although we think the process was very unfortunate. We hope that a repetition of past errors will not lead to further legislation next year. Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer) (2.27 p.m.): It is very evident from the comments of other members that this is a very complex matter. I include myself when I say that few people fully understand the ramifications and effects of the legislation before the Parlia­ ment, where it will lead the financial institutions in the future, and the effect that it will have on them. However, we do know that it will have some effect. We support the establishment of a system designed to enable finance companies to generate more finance and market their mortgages. The Bill was subjected to criticism by honourable members, who said that earlier Bills are evidence of a deficiency in the Govemment. Mr Innes: On four occasions. Mr FITZGERALD: I accept that this is the fourth occasion on which the legislation has been considered in the House. I point out to honourable members that amendments to aU Acts are introduced because of faults perceived in the legislation. Amendments are introduced when the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 5 December 1985 3369 Govemment sees reasonable grounds for bringing them to the House to improve legislation so that Queensland may benefit. That is the essence of good govemment. That is why we are here. It is not right to say that it is evidence that the Govemment is not working properly. That is why Bills are brought before aU ParUaments in the world. Not for a minute do I accept that as a basis for saying that the Govemment is failing in its duty. That would mean that all Govemments faU in their duties. However, I accept the point that legislation to amend the Mortages (Secondary Market) Act has come before the Parliament on a number of occasions. When the original Act was introduced, the Minister admitted that he expected that it would require amendment on an ongoing basis. Although similar secondary mortgage markets have been set up in other States, the Queensland scheme is fundamentally different. This Bill does not fix up drafting errors in the Act; it does not just put in the full stops. The Bill introduces a new concept. I do not recall honourable members opposite, whether they are members of the Labor Party or of the Liberal Party, stating in public or in this place that the scope of the Act needs to be broadened. They have not suggested that attempts should be made to facilitate the entering by other States into the Queensland market. They have not suggested that the term "land" should be defined to permit mortgages interstate. That is what this BiU does. It widens the concept, but I do not recaU any honourable member suggesting that these measures are desirable. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that there are now 42 approved registrants in all categories—tmstees, issuers, packagers and finance mortgage brokers— and that a further 33 applications for registration are in the course of being processed. That indicates interest in the mortgage market in this State. The Govemment has also recognised that it is necessary to amend the Act to facilitate trading in these markets between States. I do admit that it is regrettable that this Bill must be dealt with in such a short time. I know that it has been explained to the House that, at times, the Govemment has drafting problems. Indeed, there is pressure of legislation before all Houses of Parliament. Recently, the member for Toowoomba North (Mr McPhie) spoke about the number of Bills that went through in the New South Wales Parliament. Mr McPhie: Fifty-two. Mr FITZGERALD: He said that 52 Bills were passed, and I think that that was in one week. Mr Henderson: Two were not even debated. Mr FITZGERALD: Two Bills were not even debated at the second-reading stage. I do not say that that lets the Queensland Govemment off the hook, because it should be able to organise itself better so that matters come before the House in good time. I will not apologise for saying that, but I do point out that, regrettably, the practice has become the norm when it is necessary for changes to be made to legislation. I do not think that any honourable member would be game enough to say that the Act will not be amended in future. I suggest that those honourable members who are famiUar with the legislation and who know from discussion with financiers that alterations must be necessary, should float those ideas so that everyone can benefit from the superior knowledge that some people have. One provision in this Bill permits what I term the "fast tracking" of personnel in banking corporations. It provides that an applicant who is the existing holder of various types of statutory registrations prescribed in the regulations, and under which he has already undergone detailed investigations of the type conducted under the Act, shall have the entitlement to lodge a short form of application that wiU expedite a speedy registration. Under the present Act, directors of banking corporations must be investigated to make sure that they are of good repute. That is absolutely ridiculous. This provision 3370 5 December 1985 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BiU (No. 2)

wiU enable "fast tracking" so that people in Queensland buUding societies and banking corporations can be registered or become approved persons under the Act more quickly. I support this legislation, which is very complex. The BiU is basicaUy a widening of the provisions of the legislation that has been before the House on a number of occasions. No doubt, members on both sides of the House are famiUar with some of the terminology that has been discussed, but they will find that the BiU wiU faciUtate the interstate market, that is, it aUows southem people to deal on the Queensland market. I look forward with interest to see how it goes. I note the wish of the member for Sherwood (Mr Innes), who wished that this legislation and Queensland's financial institutions all the best. I hope that the legislation works for their benefit and for the benefit of Queensland. Hon. N. J. HARPER (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (2.35 p.m.), in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions. As the honourable member for Lockyer said, neither I nor the Queensland Govemment makes any apology for responding to market developments and the needs of that market. When he introduced the legislation, the Premier indicated, as I have done subsequentiy, that Queensland wiU respond to the needs of the market-place in this area of secondary mortgages. Queensland leads Australia in this field of finance and wiU continue to do so. It is all very weU for the Opposition to want to help its comrades in Victoria and New South Wales by suggesting that the Queensland Govemment should not deal with these amendments as quickly as possible. Opposition members are keen to shelter their Labor comrades in Victoria and New South Wales in an effort to give them a Uttle more breathing space and to ensure that Queensland does not get even further ahead. I can assure the House that the Queensland market wiU get further ahead. Under this legislation, the Australian secondary mortgage market wiU develop in Queensland. It is unfortunate that, this moming, the Opposition sought, under privUege, to denigrate weU-respected leaders in the community, including the chairman of the Mortgage Secondary Market Board (Mr Ian Donaldson) and the board members. It wiU do the member for SaUsbury no good to say that he did not, because, although he named only two members of that board, he cast a reflection on board members as a whole. That is unfortunate and it disappoints me. I hope that the Opposition spokesman takes an opportunity to apologise, because those members of the board are very dedicated men and have put a tremendous amount of time into this undertaking. I refer particularly to the chairman of the board (Mr Donaldson), who has put a tremendous amount of time into the development of the board to the exclusion of his own business, his own practice and his own profession. Queensland is very fortunate that its business com­ munity—the tme leaders in business in Queensland—wUl not be misled by the Oppo­ sition's remarks in that way. In his contribution to the debate, the member for Salisbury often repeated the words that he just does not understand. With the greatest of respect, I acknowledge that the honourable member does not understand what the legislation is all about. I do not intend that as an insult to him. I simply note his observations on what is certainly a very specialist field. The honourable member for Salisbury seemed not to have heard part of my speech last night—perhaps he can be excused for that—so I shall repeat it. I said— "As honourable members would appreciate, the most accurate method of determining the worth of a product, is by the response of the market. It is, therefore, pleasing to report that marketable securities issued pursuant to our Act have an average price of between 3c and 5c above the bank bill rate. A further indication of the favourable response of the commercial community to our legislation is the fact that there are now 42 approved registrants in all categories—tmstees, issuers, packagers and finance mortgage brokers. Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment Bill (No. 2) 5 December 1985 3371

In addition, MGICA Ltd has been registered as an approved insurer. A further 33 applications for registration are in the course of being processed." On occasions last night and again this aftemoon, it has become apparent that the honourable member for Sherwood and the honourable member for Salisbury are to some extent working in concert. I give credit to the honourable member for Sherwood for at least not being prepared to forgo the support of his party for what the Queensland Govemment has set out to achieve. I thank the honourable member for Sherwood for acknowledging the support of the Liberal Party in what the Govemment is setting out to achieve. Both those honourable members are members of the legal profession. They may be interested to hear—if the honourable member for SaUsbury, in particular, has not afready heard, and I find it difficult to believe that he is not aware of what his own people are saying—that on 16 March this year, the senior vice-president of the Queensland Law Society, Miss Elizabeth Nosworthy, delivered a paper to the 25th legal symposium of the Bar Association of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society. The paper is extensive, and I wish to read a couple of paragraphs into the record. Under the heading "The Queensland Approach", Miss Nosworthy stated— "The Queensland Govemment has followed a different path from that adopted by the govemments of New South Wales and Victoria and has adopted the philosophy recommended by the Campbell Committee and the Martin Review Group. The legislation in Queensland is designed to set up a general legislative framework in which a Secondary Mortgage Market can be encouraged to develop through the initiative of the private sector and accordingly there is no provision in the Queensland legislation for the setting up of a mortgage market corporation or for any govemment backing or guarantee for any marketable sercurities which might be issued. Within the general legislative framework provided, the opportunity exists to issue a range of different types of marketable securities." In other words, Queensland continues to go down the free enterprise track, and we are very proud of that fact. Because of remarks made by the honourable member for Sherwood and the honourable member for Salisbury, I shall read a press release that has been issued without any reference to me. However, it was delivered to me late this moming. It was issued by D. M. Byme, president of the Queensland Law Society. It reads— "The President of the Queensland Law Society, Mr Denis Byme, today supported the amendments proposed in the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BiU, introduced last night into State Parliament by the Minister for Justice and Attomey-General. 'The Law Society commends the Govemment for recognising that the Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act introduced in September 1984 needed to be expanded and modified. 'We are confident that the amendments proposed in the BiU now before the House wiU facilitate the better operation of the Secondary Mortgage Market and will lead to the growth of that market. 'In particular, we welcome the Govemment's commitment to continue to re­ examine and revise the Act in the future, to ensure that it wiU keep pace with changes in the needs of the market.' " That is exactly what the Premier and Treasurer said and what I have said on numerous occasions. I say again that the Queensland Govemment and I, as the Minister carrying the legislation, wiU never apologise and will never be ashamed of responding to market pressures and to the need for amendment as is indicated by those market pressures. 3372 5 December 1985 Mortgages (Secondary Market) Act Amendment BiU (No. 2)

Motion (Mr Harper) agreed to. Committee Mr RandeU (Mirani) in the chair; Hon. N. J. Harper (Aubum—Minister for Justice and Attomey-General) in charge of the BUI. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Clause 5—Amendment of s. 4; Interpretation— Mr INNES (2.45 p.m.): This clause deals with primary matters under the BUI, that is, definitions that have to be right before the rest of the BUI works, and therefore is important. I wiU make only two brief comments. Firstly, the Minister will not browbeat me or any other member of the Liberal Party by such cheap gibes as suggesting that Liberal Party members are acting in concert with the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) or any other member of the Assembly. Members of the Liberal Party act as a group. The Liberal Party does not act in concert with other people. The Liberal Party makes statements on what it believes wiU be in the interest of the people of Queensland. "Concert" has a specific legal meaning. The Minister can be forgiven for not being fully conversant with some of the legal terms that he uses. Acting in concert means acting together to achieve some common purpose. Mr Harper: Isn't that what you did last night? Mr INNES: The Liberal Party will not be daunted from supporting something because somebody else happens to be on the same track, whether it be something supported by the National Party—and the Liberal Party frequently supports that party- something beneficial supported by the Labor Party or whether the Liberal Party proposes something that somebody else decides to support. That is just cheap, nasty, pejorative, shoot-the-messenger type politics, which does not become the Minister. As he well knows, members of the Liberal Party are probably a little too ready to fight their own batties. It is just unfortunate that sometimes the Minister is involved in them. Secondly, if frequent reform of the type in this clause is necessary, it probably means that not enough work was done in the first place. Rather than responding to market forces, the correct analysis of what is involved might be that the legislation wiU be amended and amended until it works for the first time. Members of the Liberal Party feel sorry for the 42 registrants, who are clearly interested in the secondary mortgage market but have not yet been able to display their interest in a practical way by taking part in the market-place. Of course there is great interest; the Liberal Party does not deny that. Beneficial things can be achieved. However, so far, the sad reaUty is that the people with the interest have not been able to convert interest to reaUty by participating in a workable market-place. Sir William Knox: There is no market-place, because the legislation is not workable. Mr INNES: That is right, there are no market forces. By way of illustration, I raised two matters in the first debate—of which the Liberal Party had little or no waming. One of those matters related to the procuration fee that is dealt with in this legislation. Right from the beginning, I advocated that from a free-market point of view, there should be no limits on the procuration fee. Whoever offers the lowest procuration fee in a market-force situation will get there. I recommended the move to get rid of the Money Lenders Act and suggested that procuration fees, because they were part and parcel of the reality of the commercial world, of the finance industry, should be legitimated and allowed. In the past, because of a lack of commercial reality in this State's legislation, people have been forced frequentiy to go south of the border, where these things were available and legitimate. On that first day, with only 24 hours' notice, I said that there should be a widening in the number of people who would be able to become tmstees rather than a suggested limit of seven, or whatever it was. Clearly, many people should be given tmstee status. Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3373 That is now recognised, as I understand the BiU, by having two tiers of tmstees, authorised and non-authorised, who will operate in the market-place, rather than keeping it for a special group of people whose idea it was or who were particularly involved in the concept in the first place. It is quite wrong to suggest—perhaps it was not the Minister; perhaps it was the member for Lockyer (Mr FitzGerald)—that beneficial suggestions were not made from the first day. Mr GOSS: I want to take up one aspect of the initial comments of the honourable member for Sherwood and the response from the Minister, and to record my distress at the bittemess and division that has broken out in the conservative forces in this Parliament. I comment next on the Minister's misrepresentation of my comments. He said that I had, on a number of occasions, made the comment that I did not understand what the Govemment was doing. He misrepresented the position. What I said was that I simply did not understand what the Minister was setting out to do in certain instances, because he had not explained his case and he had not argued it. That he is incapable of doing so is exposed by the fact that he was not prepared to give me details of the legislation prior to last night, when there was not adequate opportunity to read it, nor was he prepared to extend that smaU courtesy even to the member for Sherwood. If the Minister could explain and justify his legislation in a competent way, he would not have to hide behind such mshed and shoddy parhamentary practices. They are the traits and symptoms of a Minister and a Govemment incapable of justifying their actions. Mr HARPER: I tmst that the honourable member for Sherwood (Mr Innes) will appreciate that I did not draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that procuration fees are covered by clause 25, not clause 5. I assume that he wiU not wish to speak to clause 25. The Govemment is considering the matter of tmstee status for building societies. I am not sure whether or not the honourable member for Salisbury (Mr Goss) is aware that the Westem Australian Law Reform Commission has addressed itself to the matter. I am giving consideration to its views. The Govemment wiU be moving on the matter. Mr GOSS: Following those comments by the Minister, I note again that the Opposition has made clear reference to the problems associated with the faUure of the Govemment to give building societies tmstee status. What is the response of the Minister? The Govemment is still considering the matter. All honourable members know what that means. At the end of the next sittings, on 24 hours' notice, another one of these Mickey Mouse Bills will be introduced to fix up this legislation, without adequate notice being given to the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. The Govemment is simply continuing with its incompetence. If the Minister were on top of the legislation, he would have dealt in the Bill with the matter of tmstee status for buUding societies. The Minister's comments expose again the incompetence of both himself and the Govemment to legislate finally and effectively. Clause 5, as read, agreed to. Clauses 6 to 32, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, vrithout amendment. Third Reading BUI, on motion of Mr Harper, read a third time.

MILK SUPPLY ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading—Resumption of Debate Debate resumed from 3 December (see p. 3182) on Mr Tumer's motion— "That the Bill be now read a second time." Mr KRUGER (Murmmba) (2.54 p.m.): The Opposition intends to raise questions conceming the problems that are created by the Govemment's mshing legislation through the House like a sausage machine, especially during the closing stages of the session. 3374 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill

I point out that, six months ago, the Minister mentioned that this legislation would be brought forward in an attempt to overcome the shonky deals that were being made, and to prevent shonky deals being made in the future. That is quite reasonable, because the Govemment has had six months in which to prepare this legislation. However, what surprises me is that the previous Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahem) informed the House on several occasions that there was no such thing as a shonky deal. The stage has been reached at which this legislation wiU have to be mshed through, and it is another example of the incompetent and arrogant Queensland Govemment pushing legislation through Parliament during the final stages of the session. Let me explain why that occurs, for more reasons than one. It is fair to say that this legislation is very confusing because of its magnitude and the kinds of amendments that are required. Moreover, certain sections have been repealed and replaced by new sections, which also takes a bit of sorting out. At the Committee stage, I wiU taJce up this matter in more detail. Apart from the fact that the legislation is confusing and has been left to the closing stages of the session, I am concemed that the shonky deals that the Govemment wishes to eradicate—and it should be home in mind that the previous Minister said that there were none—are continuing to be made, despite the fact that the Opposition has raised this matter in the House on many occasions. Towards the end of my speech, I wiU mention some names that may surprise honourable members and other people outside ParUament. It is important for me to raise this matter in connection with certain people, because of the seriousness of the problems faced by the dairy industry in Queensland. It is significant that this legislation has been introduced at a time when mUk prices have been increased, which will have an effect on the consumer. It should be remembered that the price of milk in Queensland is higher than in any other State. That is largely because of the mismanagement of the dairy industry in Queensland, which has been caused by the inabiUty of the Govemment to take action that wiU overcome the problems being faced by the industry. Recently, I read some articles that reported the rejection by the Victorian people of the Rowley plan. The Rowley plan was introduced because the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) demanded that something be done to assist the industry to overcome its problems in AustraUa. It was not surprising for me to leam that Mr Rowley proposed a scheme that was not acceptable to any other Australian State. It was unacceptable because of the attitude adopted by the Govemment of Queensland and the state of the dairy industry in Queensland. I go further and say that many of the problems that have occurred in Queensland have been brought about by problems associated with the milk entitlements scheme. Rorts have been engaged in and the mUk entitlements scheme has been maniptUated to create a false pricing arrangement. An impression has been created that there is a genuine need to increase the price of milk, whereas in fact if the rorts had not been engaged in and if the distribution of quotas had been more effectively handled, either by the industry or by the Govemment, those price hikes would not have occurred. I intend to take this matter further at a later stage. The reason for the introduction of this legislation is primarUy the Govemment's wish to prevent more shonky deals being made. As I mentioned earlier, the previous Minister for Primary Industries asserted several times that there were no shonky deals associated with the dairy industry, which is confusing in itself I could not debate this issue in sufficient depth without referring to the time when aU the problems started. I refer to a report in The Courier-Mail on 29 March 1983 by Tony Koch, which reads as foUows— "A State Govemment minister and a National Party official are expected to be accused in Parliament today of misusing sections of the Milk Supply Act for their financial benefit. MUk Supply Act Amendment BUI 5 December 1985 3375

Accusations are also expected that some people to be named have kept 'phantom dairies' to enable them to receive payments for milk, even though cows are not mUked on the properties concemed. The Opposition primary industries spokesman, Mr Kmger, is expected to make the aUegations. The argument is over milk quotas. Quota milk is bought by the factories for about 35c a Utre, but, for over-quota or factory milk, they pay only 15c a Utre. When a dairy farmer seUs his farm, he also seUs the quota. Many farms have been bought solely for the quota." Having made those accusations and having presented to this ParUament documents that I thought were very relevant at the time, I managed to bring pressure to bear. A subsequent report appeared in The Courier-Mail, as foUows— "Farm milk aUegations miss target An attempt by the State Opposition to implicate a minister and other National Party members in alleged improper deaUngs in the milk industry faUed in parliament last night." I suggest that I did not fail, because the events that have occured since prove that there was justifiable concem about the problems that existed. The people I named at that time were certainly involved. Another article in which Mr Hinze denied the rort stated that aUegations of dairy industry impropriety against the Minister for Local Govemment could not be substantiated. Having regard to the matters raised by me and other Opposition members since that time, there is no risk that those allegations were true and cortect. FoUowing my disclosure of industry problems, the then Minister introduced further amendments, which retrospectively validated the transfer of a farmer's milk quota from one processor to another. At that time, the Logan and Albert Co-operative Dairy Association had a case before the tribunal. That is about the time that the Govemment set out to destroy that co-operative. Material that I wiU produce later wUl confirm that statement. At that time, Mr Ahem denied that there was any impropriety in his decision to aUow the transfer of a milk entitlement from an Upper Coomera dairy farm. It was said that the sale of the property and the transfer appeared to be legal under existing gtude-Unes that had since been revised. Although they had been revised, nothing had changed. A newspaper article stated that Mr Ahem had said that the deals were aUowed to proceed to overcome possible personal hardships to a dairy-farmer whose entitlement shoiUd have gone into a drop-out pool for reaUocation. Fancy this Govemment considering an individual's personal hardship. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have seen the events of the past 18 months or so. This Govemment is not concemed about individuals. In that case, however, it was happy to support that suppUer even though he was breaking the law. That ridiculous situation should never have arisen. Another article states that the National Party senior vice-president (Charles Holm), sat in on a discussion with the Minister and forced him to accept a shonky deal. Although the MEC had overtumed a request made of the Minister, Mr Hohn was able to overcome the problem so that the suppUer could continue with the shonky deal. I retum to the appeal by the Logan and Albert Co-operative Dairy Association. It should have won that appeal. The MEC should have been sacked over its handling of that case. I said that then, and I repeat it now. Queensland Country Life pubUshed the foUowing very strong article on the subject— "Milk Entitiements Committee members should resign foUowing the recent decision of the Milk Appeals Tribunal, according to opposition Primary Industry spokesman ..." 3376 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill

I claimed at that time that the Act should not have had to be changed and I still say that the Act need not have been changed. It was changed because this Govemment was trying to cover up the problems that it had caused. A number of people have claimed that the Act should be changed so that the Milk Entitlements Committee, processors and producers know exactly what is required to ensure fair market distribution. That was clearly spelt out in the Act, and there was no need to change it. Everybody knew what was going on. The only reason it did not work correctly was that certain people did not want it to work correctly. So that newer members will realise exactly what went on, I now detail a couple of the deals that were done. I will relate some of the actions of National Party and industry heavies at the time. I have already detailed in this House that on 30 June 1981, Carl Henry Holm, Myrtle PhyUis Holm and Gregory Charles Holm of Kingsholme Ormeau, purchased from Harold Frederick Falkenhagen and Denise Veronica Falkenhagen of Kerry Creek, via Beaudesert 2.303 ha of land, described as lot 95 on plan 158260, parish of Jimboomba, for $147,000 which included milk entitlement. That milk entitlement is quite significant. It is certainly spelt out on the Valuer-General's notification of change of ownership form. On 8 September 1981, Holm sold the land for $60,000 without the milk entitlement. That is also shown quite clearly on the documentation. Apart from the entitlement, he lost $87,000 in three months on that transaction. That could possibly have been written off against dairy production costs. That would be suspect, to say the least. According to the Logan and Albert Times of 20 May 1981, on Friday, 17 July 1981, Harold Frederick and Denise Veronica Falkenhagen were to sell 160 top quaUty Freisian cattle. How 160 top Friesian cattle could be kept on 2.3 ha without lot-feeding I wUl never know, but that is the sort of rort that was going on. I pointed that out clearly at the time, and I do so again. Now I refer to a case in the Kilcoy area. The detaUs of the sale of $164,250 worth of milk entitlement were listed on the back of a sheet of paper. On this occasion, on 1 July, the property was bought for $164,000 for occupancy on 30 July. However, on 30 June, the day before the property was sold without the milk entitlement, the land was sold for $100,000. The milk entitlement was bought and the property was sold the day before the new owners were due to go onto it. That shows quite clearly that trading in milk entitlements has been occurring. There can be no argument about that. Another instance concemed the Thomton family. At the time, I listed quite a few others. Last night, I promised the Minister that I would go easy on him but, because of what he said last night, I must mention him today. Honourable members are all aware of the Maralinga controversy. My coUeagues and I have referred to it on a number of occasions. I should be surprised if the honourable member for Ashgrove does not refer to it today. Mr Davis: It is a real National Party Mafia on the South Coast. Mr KRUGER: It has been shocking. Many pranks have been indulged in down there. I have asked questions about the milk franchise arrangements for QUE and Pauls, which are the same company. Sometimes, I have been reasonably happy with the answers but, on other occasions, I have not been at aU happy. Whilst other factories have been seeking access to the Greater Brisbane area milk market, the Govemment has aUowed QUE to acquire 80 per cent of the market milk for the Brisbane area. Not long ago, when I asked a question about what is happening, I was not given any real answer. Over the years, QUE battied on and on and, in various ways, acquired 80 per cent of the market milk. Other factories not far from Brisbane would be very happy to get a bigger share of the market. Without doubt, QUF—a virtual monopoly—is responsible for consumers in Queensland paying more for milk than they otherwise would. Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3377 I spoke earlier about the Govemment's setting out to kill the Logan and Albert factory. Recently that company was forced into receivership because of a move in which this Govemment participated with QUF and Westpac. I make it clear that there was a conspiracy between the Govemment, Westpac and QUF to bring about the undoing of the Logan and Albert factory. I do not say that lightly. I am aware of the circumstances. I admit that the factory was not doing weU, but it was sorely hindered by the Govemment's transfer of entitlements to the Gold Coast area. When the milk tribunal heard the case, it upheld the submissions of the Logan and Albert factory. It believed that the Logan and Albert factory was hard done by. I recently asked the Minister for Primary Industries a question about the Palen Creek prison farm dairy supplying milk to a Gold Coast factory rather than to the Logan and Albert Co-operative, which was a further attempt to weaken the viability of Logan and Albert. In answering my question, the Minister said— "The Prisons Department had to determine whether to supply to Norco at Beaudesert or to transfer its supply to the South Coast Co-operative Dairy Associ­ ation. The Honourable G. Muntz placed the issue before Cabinet without a recommendation but with all of the details on likely revenue effects for consideration and determination." Norco is controlling the affairs of the co-operative. It is not the owner. The answer continued— "On available figures, there was very little difference between the expected financial retum for both options. Cabinet supported supply to the South Coast Co­ operative Dairy Association Ltd on the grounds it is a wholly owned Queensland co-operative that has made a substantial contribution to the economic development of the Gold Coast and its hinterland." The Minister said— "On available figures, there was very little difference between the expected financial retum for both options." Other people have told me that if Palen Creek had not transferred to the South Coast factory, it would have lost quite a deal of money. I am not quite sure what the Minister had in mind when he said that the Gold Coast Dairy was a wholly owned Queensland company. I point out, once more, that the Logan and Albert factory is Queensland owned. The fact that Norco is there as a receiver at this stage does not alter the ownership. Quite possibly, Norco will become the owner of the Logan and Albert factory but, at this stage, it is not. The answer continued— "I make no apology for the Cabinet decisions to transfer supply from Logan and Albert Co-operative to the South Coast Co-operative Dairy Association, which is in line with the Govemment's stated policy of supporting a locally based company rather than one from interstate." I do not need to say anything more about that. Mr Turner: What about all the private producers who transferred out? Mr KRUGER: In many cases, the private producers were allowed to go because of the shonky deals that went on. They were helped by the Govemment's decision to allow people to transfer—indeed, it suggested that they transfer—to the Gold Coast. I wam the Minister not to try to put that sort of thing over me. If he does, my argument will be even longer. Mr Reid from Norco Dairies was reported as saying— "... the move was a case of 'old adversaries having once again used their political connections to kick them while they were down'. 3378 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment BUI

... the battUng Beaudesert suppliers were alarmed and dismayed by the Cabinet decision." This wiU mean that the viability of the Logan and Albert Co-operative wiU be wrecked. Although the Govemment has not offered it any assistance, it goes out of its way to support the Gold Coast Dairies where the Hinzes, HoUindales and Kleinschmidts operate. Time after time, I have shown in this Chamber that that sort of thing does go on. I tum now to discuss two Hope Island dairies, and the Minister may care to answer some of my questions in his reply. One dairy is owned by John and Beryl Davidson and covers 156.1 ha. It has been resumed by the Main Roads Department for the new bridge and roadworks in the area. Another dairy, of 201.4 ha, is owned by Ken and EUzabeth Smith. That dairy has also been resumed by the Main Roads Department. Ken Smith is chairman of the MetropoUtan Milk Producers Association, which is the group with which the Rowleys and the Hinzes are associated. As I have said before, the Hinze dairy sends some mUk to the Gold Coast Dairies and some to the metropoUtan area. This legislation has been delayed for a particular reason and to aUow the dust to settle. It means that certain people have been given the chance to finaUse their shonky deals before the legislation is passed. I challenge the Minister to state why the legislation was not introduced six months ago when he first announced it. Mr Turner: We announced a freeze on transactions. Mr KRUGER: The Govemment may have put a freeze on, but it is worth whUe looking at what has happened. Although I do not like dropping the names of my friends, in this situation I must. The most important deal in recent times concemed the transfer of entitiement and the subsequent sale of property by Mr P. A. Buchanan. Mr Buchanan is better known as Lex Buchanan, and he is vice president of the Queensland Dairymen's Organisation and a member of the Milk Entitlements Committee. He purchased a property at Cedar Pocket in the Wide Bay supply area from M. B. and P. A. Conroy. The property covers 63.5 ha and has entitlement of 203 Utres a day. The purchase price was $255,000. The property was 5 mUes from Mr Buchanan's dairy, the entitlement of which is 312 Utres a day. Mr Buchanan now has an entitlement of 515 Utres a day, which is a significant amount in the Wide Bay area because, generaUy, the entitlements are not nearly as large as those in south-east Queensland. If some of the people in south-east Queensland had had their way, they would never have got as much as they have. The amalgamation of entitlements was passed by the Milk Entitlements Committee on or about 11 August 1985. Mr Buchanan retained a smaU portion of the property and sold the rest. That is exactly what the Govemment has allowed to occur simply because of its procrastination in not bringing this BUI before the ParUament earlier. Although I revealed some years ago that shonky deals were happening, the Govemment has made no attempt to stamp them out. Because other members of the Opposition wish to speak to the BiU, my contribution wiU not be lengthy. Unfortunately, the Opposition has had to accept what the Minister said about the BUI. I have read the legislation and the Minister's second-reading speech, which I do not beUeve ties in fully with the contents of the Bill. I point out to the Govemment that if this BUI is a failure—if, in fact, it is not what the dairy industry wants, as the Minister has said—the Govemment wUl be fuUy responsible for any problems that arise. Because of the way in which it has been introduced, the Opposition wiU take no responsibUity for any failings in the legislation. Mrs Chapman: You don't take any responsibihty, anyway, do you? MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3379 Mr KRUGER: Of course the Opposition does. Members of the Opposition have to go out into the field and represent people. That is the trouble with members of the Govemment: they believe that the Opposition has no say. Of course we have a say; we would not be elected to Parliament if we were not to have a say. If the Govemment wants to set this sort of precedent, when things are reversed and they are sitting on this side of the House, we will tum the boot right into them. The way the Govemment is going, that day is not very far away. The Opposition has not had the time to check fully the details of the legislation. The BiU does not contain the usual short amendments; the proposed amendments are wide-ranging. Some sections have been repealed and replaced by new sections. I wiU deal with some of them at the Committee stage. On 22 June 1985, the Milk Supply Regulations were amended to permit a producer to transfer 100 per cent of his entitlement. At this stage, that seems to be working reasonably weU, other than in the Logan and Albert areas. Some of the things that could happen in this industry could be very nasty for dairy-farmers. The rationalisation of the industry has been talked about in recent years and has been reasonably successful. Many people have left the industry, which has helped those who have remained. However, many problems stUl exist. Because the State now has fewer dairy-farmers, the industry should be able to stabUise. However, fewer cows are producing more milk, which has led to continued overproduction. The Govemment is not combating that. I will not be surprised if the Minister says in his reply that that is John Kerin's fault. That is the stick that the Minister uses on every possible occasion. John Kerin tried to do something for the dairy industry, but the States continually rejected his suggestions. It has been left to Rowley, who believes that he is God's gift to the dairy industry in Australia. His proposal has been knocked by the Victorians. Quite clearly, nobody in the industry in Queensland is competent enough to overcome the problems of the industry. The enhanced system of negotiabiUty of producer market milk entitlements is suspect. Such a system can be manipulated and used badly. One matter that I want to raise particularly arose from the Minister's saying— "The amendment wiU end the de facto trading in entitlements achieved by the purchase and amalgamation of dairy farms, with the purchased property being resold later foUovring the amalgamation of the entitlements. This procedure has become commonplace owing to the perceived market value of entitlements being well in excess of the prescribed $50 per litre." If that sort of thing has been going on—the former Minister said that it has not—why has the Govemment waited until the dying days of this session of the ParUament to bring in legislation to stop it? That practice should have been stamped out immediately. Mr Tiu-ner: You are not opposing what we are doing? Mr KRUGER: I am not opposing the Bill; I am questioning the delay. I have said already that the reason for the delay was to allow a few people to finalise their deaUngs before the Govemment acted. The BiU deals with the "prescribed quantity". If a producer produces under 750 Utres a day, he sacrifices 20 per cent. If he produces more than that amount, 20 per cent is added on. That is reasonable for the bigger producers. The richer people will be able to buy more and more entitlements. That happened in the pineapple industry. Doctors and other Queen Street farmers were able to buy more shares and produce pineapples, to the cost of the legitimate and genuine growers and producers. Although this is an attempt to level things out in the dairy industry, it will lead to problems. Mr Turner: Don't you concede that that automaticaUy leaves more in the pool for distribution to the under-average producer? 3380 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill

Mr KRUGER: Yes, it does leave more in the pool. However, at one stage, the entitlement all went into the pool if a dairy was sold. The Govemment has got over that by allowing shonky deals to take place—I admit that they occurred before the Minister's time—which precluded some of the drop-out mUk from getting into the pool. Now it has gone into the pool and there has been some distribution. I do not argue about that distribution of the mUk that has gone into the pool and has been reallocated. There is much merit in that. People with more money wUl now be able to buy entitlements, whereas previously the bloke who was battiing would have received a small percentage of drop-out. He will no longer be considered. Mrs Chapman: At least the ones who are seUing now wiU be able to get a fair price. Mr KRUGER: One does not milk steel. The honourable member is not aware of what is involved in milking cows. She is a long way from it. Mrs Chapman: I think that I would know more about mUk than you do. Mr KRUGER: I would not bet on that. Anyway, I wUl not get into a conflict with the honourable member, who looks a bit like DoUy Parton. A great deal more could be said about the Bill. I would have liked to have a chance to talk to various people about the Bill. Possibly the Minister wiU say that the BiU was introduced last Thursday. However, that has not given me much time. People in the industry are not always easy to contact so that these matters can be discussed. The industry is in such a bad state that the people in the industry are working much longer hours and are becoming more difficult to contact. The Minister said that the Bill has the blessing of the Queensland dairying industry. I hope that he is right. If he is right, the legislation could work very weU; if he is wrong, the responsibility for the faUure of this legislation will rest solely on the shoulders of the Minister and the Queensland Govemment. Mr BOOTH (Warwick) (3.21 p.m.): I will not preface my remarks by saying that I welcome the Bill. However, I accept the Minister's statement that some urgency arose in relation to the introduction of the BUI. I understand that for some time there has been a freeze on certain matters in the dairying industry and that it cannot be left in that situation. Mr Hartwig: There are not many dairy-farmers left. Mr BOOTH: One would think that there are not. I have some statistics that show that south-east Queensland still has a fair number of dairy-farmers. Many people rely on the dairying industry for their livelihood. I have some reservations about the intent of the Bill. When the BUI was introduced in 1977, I had only recentiy been elected as a member of this Assembly. The intent at that time was to provide more equitable distribution of market milk. The Govemment had high hopes that it would achieve that goal. It is almost the end of 1985. Although we have done something, we have not achieved nearly as much as we expected or had hoped to achieve. That makes us wary of where we are going. However, I am hopeful that the BUI wiU achieve some of the things that are needed. The market is being opened up, and those people who want to purchase, provided that they meet the criteria—they must be below 750 Utres Mr Hamill: What you are saying lacks conviction. Mr BOOTH: I am trying to make a contribution. If the honourable member for Ipswich tried to do that instead of blindly following the trade union line, he would do much better. A conscientious contribution is what makes a member in this Chamber. I said that I have some reservations about the Bill. To put it blandly, I am worried that the Queen Street farmer might finish up with the milk entitlements. That is not Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3381 our intent. If that begins to happen, I hope that the Minister vriU do something about it. As he is a sincere man, I know that he wiU. I represent an electorate on the Darling Downs. All honourable members who represent electorates on the Darling Downs are worried to a certain extent because the factories in that area work on what is known as the percentage system. That is the best system that has been adopted in Queensland. The quota system has been in operation for a long time. The Minister should not treat the dairy-farmers on the DarUng Downs too Ughtiy; they are not entitled to be treated that way. At the moment, there are 737 dairy-farmers on the DarUng Downs, compared with about 1 100 in the rest of south­ east Queensland. The dairy-farmers on the Darling Downs represent more than one- third of the dairy-farmers in south-east Queensland, so they should be entitied to a great deal of consideration. I have spoken to the members who represent electorates on the Darling Downs— the honourable member for Toowoomba North (Mr McPhie), the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Elliott) and the honourable member for Toowoomba South (Mr Wamer). They and I would like to see the Downs factories get at least a fair go. They must be aUowed to hold quotas for perhaps three or four months, until they can be sold off to dairy-farmers in those areas. I would not want all of the quotas to come down from the top of the hiU to the coast. I do not believe that that would be good for the State, either. One of the best things that any industry can do—I see that the honourable member for Mackay is paying attention; I hope that he will agree with me—is spread the risks, spread the industry over a fairly large area. That has been one of the strong points of the sugar industry. If one area suffers a drought, another area will probably be much more fortunate, and costs can be kept under control. For that reason, I believe that there is a great deal of merit in retaining those Downs dairy-farmers. Mr Casey: The Downs has always had top-quality producers. Mr BOOTH: In regard to quality, because of the different climatic conditions and the different soil systems, the Downs farmers have no equal. I am worried on another score. I am concemed that the smaUer farmer will be forced into a position in which he might not be able to compete in the market-place with the larger producers when quotas become available. By way of interjection, the honourable member for Pine Rivers (Mrs Chapman) said that when the smaller farmer sells, he will get some money. I agree with that. If the smaller farmer has to get out and he can sell, he will leave the industry with a bit of dignity. He would probably have at least enough to buy a house. I suppose that that is not much for a lifetime's work, but it is far better than nothing. I am in a bit of a bind. If somebody suggested tomorrow the abolition of the price for litreage quotas, I do not know that I would support that. That would cause me concem. However, at the same time, I would not Uke the price for these quotas to go too high. The new idea is to float the price of a Utre of milk by way of entitlement. I hope that it is more successful than floating the dollar, which has not proved a great success as yet. Roating the price of milk might cause some problems. The price might go too high. Perhaps one thing will keep the price down—but it is not a very nice thought for dairy-farmers. I refer to the possibility of invasions across the border by southem milk. That might stop .people paying foolish prices for milk. When one compares the prices of manufactured milk and market milk, it becomes obvious which type the farmer would want to sell. I do not think anyone in the industry can produce milk and use it to manufacture butter and cheese. That does not appear to be viable. Quite frankly—and I say this in all sincerity—I think that one of these days, the industry will have to consider that price 3382 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill

and determine whether it is worth producing at that price. Something completely different might be envisaged. The Minister cannot close his eyes to the price of manufactured mUk. It has continued to drop. The situation was always bad; now it is just flaming ridiculous. I hope that the Minister will monitor the situation and that if he finds that something is going wrong, he will not be afraid to amend the legislation. EarUer, I heard some criticism of another Minister because he introduced three or four amendments. That is a Minister's task. If he believes that something is virong, he ought to introduce amendments. I hope that this Minister will keep his eye on the dairying industry, with particular emphasis on whether the price of a Utre of milk gets out of hand. If the factories on the Darling Downs cannot compete under the percentage system, perhaps they may have to make an adjustment and adopt the quota system. They have been reluctant to do that, because, to some extent, those factories rely on the amount of manufacturing milk that passes through them. Therefore, they have problems. I was a member of the Eastem Downs district councU of the Queensland Dairymen's Organisation. Over a long period, I held a number of executive positions in the dairying industry. At that time, I felt that the QDO represented aU sections of the industry. Perhaps, at my stage in life, I am becoming more critical or cynical, but I wonder whether the QDO, as it is presently constituted, represents all of the dairy-farmers of Queensland. I certainly wonder whether it represents smaU farmers and those in isolated areas such as the Darling Downs. For that reason, I hope that, even at this late stage, the QDO will consider its direction. It has been anxious to have the legislation introduced. The Minister has taken advice from the QDO, which claims to represent the dairy- farmers of Queensland. However, other people have a part to play. The representatives of the Downs and areas farther out must become more mUitant and much tougher. They should not attend meetings and say, "We do not want to make trouble. We wiU agree with what is proposed." The House is dealing with far-reaching legislation. It is a big departure from anything else that the dairying industry has tried. Perhaps it is a departure from anything tried in any other industry. The decision to allow the price of a Utre of entitlement milk to float is virtuaUy a decision to auction the right to produce. I may be wrong—I do not have as thorough an understanding of the sugar industry as I do of the dairying industry— but I do not think that that has ever happened in any primary industry without the farm being purchased. I congratulate the Minister for having safeguards incorporated in the legislation. I appreciate that. One of the safeguards is that a person with 750 Utres of milk cannot compete. He has to buy another farm. If he does, he has to put 40 per cent into the pool. I am not sure whether the member for Murmmba has, but I have not mentioned that, in any transaction, 20 per cent has to be sent to the pool. The Bill is unclear about what happens to that 20 per cent. The industry is more or less at the mercy of the MiUc Entitiements Committee, I think, although the Minister may care to comment on that in his reply. I know a number of members of that committee personally, but I do not intend handing out any bouquets or congratulations to them. I do not know that it is the best committee ever set up by the industry. That is one of the worries that I have about the BiU. The Minister has frozen a number of deals and had to take some action, so I accept the urgency about the legislation. However, the Parliament is breaking new ground. I hope I am wrong, but I think I am right in expressing concem about legislation that gives, to those with money, the power to outbid those without it. Safeguards exist in the area of high production, but the provision for 750 litres gives a large number of people much room to move. For that reason, I am worried about the legislation. I hope that the legislation is not the foremnner of moves in other primary industries. Unfortunately, the farmers of Queensland and the rest of AustraUa have kUled themselves by being too damed efficient and working too damed hard. In the dairying industry and MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3383

many others, they have over-produced. That over-production is beginning to bite fairly hard and making it difficult for people to maintain the standard of Uving and financi^ viability to which they have become accustomed. Numerous dairy farms represent an investment of $lm or $1.5m. Many others are worth $500,000; $400,000 would be the smallest dairy farm investment from which one could expect to make a livelihood. I do not know the proportion of the money that is borrowed, but it woiUd not surprise me, if I were to look across the broad spectmm of dairy farm operations, to find that the average would represent approximately a 25 per cent equity in the farm. The equity may be much higher than that. Those farmers who have borrowed a high proportion of the capital invested in the farm are the first to get into trouble. They are probably the people who will try to bid the highest price for the quotas of milk that are avaUable. Taking everything into consideration and despite the problems that I foresee, I maintain my faith in the Department of Primary Industries and in the Minister because of the abiUty that has been demonstrated in the management of dairy industry problems. I hope that, in the future, the Queensland dairy industry wiU not be confronted with many problems conceming milk quotas. I tum now to comment on the activities of the Queensland Milk Board, because I notice, over recent weeks, a degree of empire-building by the board. Some new executive positions have been created, and it seems as though that action wiU involve an escalation in expenditure. For that reason, I ask the Minister to take a keen interest in the activities of the Queensland Milk Board to see whether the establishment of these executive positions is wartanted. It is easy to be an empire-builder, particularly when the venture does not require that person to put any money in. I sometimes criticise the Opposition and say that the trade union organisation is a costiy exercise. If I am to be fair dinkum about my comments relative to the Queensland Milk Board, I must ask the Minister to examine the establishments funded by the Govemment and to consider the introduction or orderly marketing schemes that are designed to prevent an unreasonable escalation of cost. It may be that the implementation of the proposals will lend support to the increase in the costs associated with the activities of the Queensland Milk Board, but I think that the costs should be monitored aU the same. When I was involved in the dairy industry, enormous cost was associated with the estabUshment of milk-marketing authorities in New South Wales, and I think that the Queensland Govemment should guard against extremes of expenditure. I express my acceptance of the urgency associated with the BiU. Although I hope that the legislation wiU be successful, I am concemed about measures that wUl mean that milk entitiement will be sold in the market-place. That measure is a cause for concem, and I tmst that the Minister wUl watch over that proposal. Mr CASEY (Mackay) (3.37 p.m.): For special reasons, I am pleased to take part in the debate. Firstiy, however, I wish to say that I have been impressed by the more recent comments of the honourable member for Warwick (Mr Booth). He comes from good, Country Party stock and not from the new National Party flash-shoe brigade of Gold Coast real estate developers and hobby farmers from Redlands and the other districts that surround Brisbane. He and I share traditional and historical ties with mral areas and mral people. Looking back on the history of this Assembly, it is easy to trace through the debates and obtain an understanding of the fact that the Country party and the Australiaii Labor Party were closely aligned in their attitudes to rural matters, because both parties had an understanding of the nature and needs of the mral industry and of the ambitions of the people who farm the country side. Both parties were aware of the need for farmers to have proper access to markets and to be provided with an equal share of markets without being snowed by the big investors, the big speculators and the big money- manipulators who were traditionally associated with the Liberal Party. It is interesting 3384 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill that, over more recent years, the big investors have shifted their allegiance to the National Party in this State. The wamings given by the honourable member for Warwick are valid, as they relate to the dairy industry. That is home out by what happened when the Minister travelled to Sydney on 25 September to put forward his proposal designed to solve the problems of the sugar industry in Queensland. Because such an outcry arose from the sugar- producers in this State, the Minister was forced to pull his head in very quickly and very smartly, and he ultimately withdrew his proposal. That proposal was all about the transfer of quotas, peaks and assignments without proper and necessary checks and controls being installed to maintain faimess for all. Mr Deputy Speaker, your family were members of the old-style Country Party. In your area it was formed really to look after the interests of the sugar industry. That need has not changed down through the years. Cane-growers in your area want the Sugar Board to take action to protect the sugar industry, and the Milk Board should take simUar action in regard to the dairy industry. I do not intend to digress too far, but I must state that there is a need to retain the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board and to either scrap or drastically change the Sugar Board. This legislation is typical of the National Party legislation that has been introduced recently in this Chamber. It shows that the National Party is thinking only of the cow- cockies, if I might use that familiar old term. The Govemment is not concemed about all the other people associated with the dairy industry, especially the consumer. Surely, if there is to be an orderly marketing system in any primary industry, the Govemment has to look at legislation that covers everybody right down the line. That is necessary if there is to be a retum to the producers, and all the people who work for them, and aU those involved in the transportation and processing of the primary product into the healthy product that eventually reaches the consumer's table. I want to raise a specific point relating to vendors. The milk vendor is the contact between the producer and the consumer. The consumer does not buy his milk and cream straight from the dairy-farmer or the factory. Over the years, a very good marketing chain has been established in the dairy industry, and it should continue. In enables a guaranteed healthy product—that is very important in modem society—to be presented to the consumer. However, more and more problems are becoming evident in the vendor area. The Govemment is doing nothing to solve those problems. I will relate the details of a number of problems in my area that will clearly illustrate the point I want to make. Over a 10 or 20-year period prior to the coming into force of this legislation, the milk vendors in the Mackay region came to an artangement under which they all had a fair and equitable share of the market. They were able to achieve a good retum on their investment. However, areas expand and times change. Consequentiy, the area necessary to ensure an adequate retum to a vendor also changed. A once well- regulated system is falling apart. I have talked to members from other parts of the State, and they all agree that too many milk mns are now being leased. There are now absentee owners of milk mns. The people who lease the milk mns are out on their own. They carry milk crates from door to door distributing the product and trying to make a living. The regulations promulgated under this Act provided for a number of milk-vending advisory committees throughout the State. Some of the people on those committees, however, have been discovered to be members of syndicates that own a number of mns. That is exactly what is happening in Mackay at present. A number of vendors operate an organisation that controls a tremendous number of mns that are leased. The draw there, however, is that the lessees pay 19 per cent of their net income to that organisation. I think it is the Milk Supply Committee that has given the imprimatur to that practice. If 19 per cent is being skimmed off the top, they are really getting the cream. It virtually means that the 19 per cent could be passed on to the consumer or the producer. As the Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3385

honourable member for Murmmba said, that would mean a better retum for the producers. Mr Kruger: I think QUF takes a bit of cream off the top. Mr CASEY: That is right. I am talking about the saleable product that the vendor hawks to the consumers. The 19 per cent represents a very big profit. It is not a bad retum for an absentee owner. The honourable member for Warwick emphasised that, in many areas, hobby- farmers or Queen Street farmers are getting additional milk entitlements and mnning the milk industry. The expansion of vendors' mns has to be considered. They are tightly controlled and completely inflexible. People working certain areas are not getting the benefits from the work that they do. As with all businesses, economy of scale is very important. In the light of increased fuel costs, increased motor vehicle costs and increased wages, vendors need a bigger retum to maintain their income. That is very difficult when someone at the top is skimming off 19 per cent. The closure of one retail outlet, a change in the buying practices of a supermarket or the opening of a big shopping centre can mean that a vendor goes down the tube economically. That is happening today under our so-called free enterprise Govemment. The screws are being put on the vendors. Vendors should be given a better opportunity to expand, and there should be no absentee control of licences. The Milk Board, the Minister and his advisers should take aU possible action to remove the practices that are creeping into the industry and causing added costs for consumers and added hardships for vendors, who want to make a reasonable living. Mr STEPHAN (Gympie) (3.48 p.m.): Today, the dairying industry and most other primary industries are in a very tenuous financial position. Some dairy-farmers are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. The Minister is trying to keep the farmers happy under the present conditions, but that is an almost impossible task. My mind goes back to about 25 years ago, when the industry was in a much better state, when commercial butter could be produced profitably and when casein was wanted on the overseas markets. In those days, producers were viable and did not want to produce a given product. In these days, only one dairy product is viable. In the light of the high cost of wages, irrigation and fertilisers, the production of manufactured milk is in no way a viable proposition for the farmer. Milk-producers rely on warm milk or market milk to survive. The Milk Act was introduced in 1977, when many factories were finding it difficult to produce manufactured milk profitably and wanted access to a viable market. To date, 216 000 litres of milk have been redistributed, and that represents about 35 per cent of total daily sales. In 1977-78, there were approximately 2 500 dairy-farmers in south-east Queensland. Since then, the number has dropped by approximately two producers per week or 100 a year so that now only 1 800 producers remain in the industry in south-east Queensland. That itself tells a story. The amalgamations have endeavoured to make farms viable, with the aim of building up the entitlements and quotas. For the life of me, I do not know how producers with an entitlement of less than 100 litres of milk can make a reasonable living, even when they diversify into other forms of primary production. These producers, particularly, are envious of other producers in their district who have larger entitlements. The Wide Bay supply area supports many more producers than other parts of south­ east Queensland, with the exception of the Darling Downs, which has by far the largest number of producers. In 1977-78, the Wide Bay area produced 129 281 litres of mUk a day, of which 21 572 or 16.69 per cent was processor entitlement. Since then, milk production in the Wide Bay area has increased considerably, and the percentage of entitlement to intake of warm milk is now 35 per cent. The Wide Bay supply area now 3386 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill

produces more than 184 000 litres a day, of which 65 000 is processor entitlement of warm milk. However, in the same period, the number of producers has dropped to approximately 250 and continues to drop. Many producers are finding it difficult to meet interest and redemption payments. Indeed, many are finding it difficult to meet their interest repayments, let alone their redemption repayments. I have received a number of complaints about the activities of producers in their efforts to increase their quotas. The BiU is designed to overcome the problem of de facto trading in entitlements, which is achieved by the purchase and amalgamation of dairy farms, with the purchased property being resold following the amalgamation of the entitlements. This procedure has become commonplace, owing to the perceived market value of the entitlements being weU in excess of the prescribed $50 per Utre. This procedure has also restricted the quantity of milk entitlement flowing into the drop-out pool and its reaUocation by the Milk Entitlements Committee. In some instances, the rate is getting up to $400 and $500 per litre of entitlement. That takes into account the interest paid on the money for the purchase of the property, the time that it takes to seU the property again and the amount received for the property when it is sold. It is expensive to purchase milk entitiements, and that cost must be recouped through mUk production. It takes a long time to get that money back. Any step to stabiUse the industry has met with the approval of the vast majority of producers, although not all of them. Like the member for Warwick (Mr Booth), I question the advisabiUty of giving large financiers, lai^e producers and Queen Street farmers an edge on producers. Their access to finance will enable them to purchase properties as a way of increasing their mUk entitlements. Even though they cannot receive increased entitlements from the pool system over and above the 750-Utre prescribed quantity, they wUl have other avenues open to them. I note that the BUI wUl provide for an enhanced system of negotiabUity of producer market milk entitiements. That wiU allow producers to buy and sell entitlements at the prevaiUng market rate. I hope that that price wiU level itself out to a figm-etha t wUl be both viable and affordable to the average producer. The granting to the Milk Entitlements Committee of additional powers to implement the system of entitlement negotiabiUty and to effectively administer the Act is a step forward. It is only after the legislation has been in operation for some time that the industry wiU know whether aU the problems have been solved. I am glad that the MEC wiU have the additional powers to implement a system that wiU work. The strengthening of the provisions of the Act relating to the 100 per cent transferabUity of producer entitlements between processors is an important part of the BUI. For some time, a great deal of ailment has occurted on that point. The increase in the price paid to the producer for the milk purchased must always be home in mind. I know the industry relies to a great extent on the free market. That levels out the price. I fear that people look at that in the short term. Sometimes they use their access to finance in a way that is not necessarily to the benefit of the industry. I wish to point out some of the problems in my area. One of them is the imminent closure of the Nestle factory for manufacturing milk, which has operated in Gympie for 30-odd years. When Nestie built that factory, it undertook a study and concluded that Gympie had the abUity to increase its production efficientiy to make that factory a long- term project. However, with the current market prices and ever-increasing costs, Nestie is not able to keep that factory open for very much longer. I compUment Nestie not for the closure of the factory but for giving notice to the producers that they should make altemative arrangements. That softened the blow—if a blow of that nature can be softened. The closure of that factory has put a great deal of pressure on the local producers and co-operatives. They have to ensure that they produce only sufficient product that MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3387

can be used in the market-place. I know that that has led to discussions and negotiations between factories and others in the industry in the Sunshine Coast area. I woiUd like to think that if there is to be a transfer of the processing of flavoured and pasteurised milk from the Gympie area, it wiU be replaced by the manufacture of some other product, such as cheese or even casein. I know that casein was produced in Gympie qiute a few years ago, but production from overseas made the local efforts unprofitable. The amalgamation of the Wide Bay and other areas wiU be to the forefront of any discussions. AU of these things highlight the fact that what the Minister and the industry are trying to do is get some stabiUsation to level things out and make the industry economicaUy viable. I compUment the Minister and the members of the industry on what they have done. The problem is not easy to solve. It wUl mean a great deal of heartbum for dairy- farmers in the Wide Bay area and in many other areas. The quotas should ensure that each farmer has a viable uiut, but an entitlement of 35 per cent does not ensure viabiUty. It is up to dairy-farmers to increase their production to exceed demand. The greatest problems are experienced in distribution, not in production. I wish the Minister weU in his endeavours. I hope that the industry is able to produce a product that will keep it in business. Mr VEIVERS (Ashgrove) (4 p.m.): I have a great deal of pleasure in participating in this debate, because I was bom and bred on a dairy farm. My mother used to say to me, "Drink plenty of milk. It is good for your eyesi^t and your health." That proved to be the case. Before I left for school in the morning, my father used to say to me, "Round up the cows; its good for your footwork." That proved to be the case. When I came home from school in the aftemoon, my father would say to me again, "Round up the cows; it's good for your arm." A weU-placed stone into the bushes often was the best way of rounding up the cows in the aftemoon. That also helped me later on. I remember very clearly other aspects of the dairying industry and the type of people who were associated with it. MaJce no mistake; they were straight shooters. This aftemoon, my coUeagues the honourable member for Murmmba (Mr Kmger), the honourable member for Mackay (Mr Casey) and the honourable member for Warwick (Mr Booth) have referred to the quaUty of those people and the number of famiUes who used to depend on the dairying industry for their economic viabiUty and survival. They were efficient farmers. Although they were smaU farmers, they had to work hard. They provided a service and supported an industry in this State that I thought was very good. Mr Lee: They call you the Ashgrove stripper, don't they? Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member can see that I stiU drink milk, because I StiU beUeve that it is good for one's health. The only problem is that, these days, one has to combine it with a few other things. That is improving me in other ways. Several honourable members have said that the Govemment has been responsible for the demise of that section of the industry and the removal from our society of the people in it. In other words, the big feUow is getting bigger and the smaU farmer, who provided jobs and opportunities for many people in the State and made the industry viable, is disappearing from the market-place as a restUt of the poUcies of the Queensland Govemment. The honourable member for Warwick expressed his concem. He said that he was worried about the big man getting bigger and the Uttle man being forced out of the industry. That is also my concem. Mr Eaton: It's the National Party's phUosophy to get bigger or get out. Mr VEIVERS: The honourable member is cortect. How does that equate with the so-caUed free enterprise phUosophy about which honourable members hear so much in this Chamber from National Party members? The big man is getting bigger and the small man is being forced out. Where is the free enterprise? Some sections of this legislation wUl promote monopoUstic situations through 3388 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill

co-operative factories. One need only look at what has happened on the Gold Coast with the south coast factory. Mr FitzGerald: Are you against co-operatives? Mr VEIVERS: No, I am not. The honourable member should talk to the farmers in the Logan and Albert area about the recent results and ask them about their concem about what is happening in that area. They will tell him where they wanted to put their support; they wiU also tell him about their attitude to the Gold Coast co-operative. Not many farmers in that area would be very happy with the big monopoUes and what they have done. As the honourable member for Mackay (Mr Casey) said before, the old Country Party has disappeared from the map. I was led to believe that there were a number of dairy-farmers in this House. A few of my more experienced colleagues would probably remember them. Where have they gone? The National Party no longer represents those people. Mr Lee: Have you got any farmers in Ashgrove? Mr VEIVERS: Yes, there are a couple of farmers in Ashgrove. I tum to the price of milk. Milk in this State is more expensive than anywhere else in Australia. That is an absolute tragedy. In recent times, so many charges that are the responsibility of this Govemment have increased. Those increases are affecting the small-businessman and the family. I refer to increases in electricity tariffs, vehicle registration fees, stamp duty, fire levies, home- insurance premiums, petrol prices, court costs, legal fees, search and title fees, births, deaths and marriages registration fees, maritime charges and so on. There are hundreds of them. The recent increase that hits the family most of aU, because famUies rely on the commodity so heavily, is the increase in the price of mUk. The price of milk is ridiculously high. Mr FitzGerald: It is a good health food. You should promote it. Queensland has the highest consumption per head of population in Australia. Mr VEIVERS: I am not talking about consumption or the promotion of milk;T am talking about the price of milk. I must say that the promotion of milk as a commodity in this State has been very good, and the industry deserves fiiU marks for that. The promotion of the benefits of milk is one of the good things that the industry has done in this State. I do not quibble with that. However, that has nothing to do with the price. The price of milk is too high. Many Queensland families are suffering as a result of that. I want to briefly refer to one other matter. Honourable members will recall my comments and the publicity that they were given in relation to the deviation of the main road at Samsonvale. Honourable members also know that, when playing an investigative role, members of Parliament have to stomp round neighbourhoods and so forth. When I was walking in the Samsonvale area, I discovered something that was most interesting on a property near the road. I do not think I have ever seen so many cattle per hectare on any property in this State. This property belongs to a chap named Barry Cochrane, who, I understand, has the highest milk quota in the State. I have never seen so many cows on a relatively small property anywhere in this State, but he has the highest milk quota. I wonder how that could be so. The road was to go through part of that man's property. I have in front of me photographs that I will explain briefly and photocopies of which I wiU table. A section of the road mns through only a small part of his property. Mr Cochrane's property is near Mr Needham's former property. Just near the top of a dangerous S-bend, there is a very large tunnel under the main road adjoining the two properties. In fact, the tunnel is so large that it is capable of being used by a very large tmck. Of course, a substantial MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3389 number of stock can go through the tunnel under the road. Further down the road additional access is provided. I ask: Was Mr Cochrane able to achieve certain things because he has the largest mUk quota in the State? Was it because he was a member of the National party that he was able to achieve those things? Was it because he knows the Premier? Was it because he knows the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing, who is also involved in the milk industry? I ask those questions because Mr Cochrane, who has the largest entitlement in the State, seems to have achieved quite remarkable advantages for his property. It was quite interesting to find that out in the course of what I was doing in the area. Mr Hamill: There are some remarkable things going on in that area. Mr VEIVERS: There certainly are. One only has to talk to people there to leam of the remarkable events that have taken place. Mr Lee interjected. Mr VEIVERS: The member for Yeronga is fully aware of some of the remarkable occurrences in that area. I notice that he nods his head. I refer briefly to the concem that has been expressed by a number of farmers in the Logan and Albert area. I still know many of them. Some have telephoned me recently to express their concem about the state of the factory in Beaudesert and the involvement of Norco. They are concemed by what might be referred to as the take-over of that factory by what they caU "the Gold Coast mob". They are not my words, but they show how strongly people in the Logan and Albert area feel about the Gold Coast Co-operative. Even thou^ some of the people in the area are members of the National Party, they refer to "the conclave of National Party manipulators". That is the term used for the Hinzes, the Holms, the HoUindales, the Muntzes, the Kleinschmidts and others referred to by my colleague the honourable member for Murmmba (Mr Kmger). The people living in the Ormeau/Oxenford/Coomera area are referred to as "the conclave of National Party manipulators". I would be interested to hear explanations in the Minister's reply* about the reasons for the decisions that have been made about the Logan and Albert factory and the farmers in that area. FinaUy, I reiterate my concem about the price of milk in Queensland. That is just one of the many imposts upon Queenslanders resulting from Govemment action. It is absolutely ridiculous for any member on the Govemment side to claim that Queensland is a low-tax State. That is just not so. On other occasions I have listed the service charges that are higher in Queensland than in other States. MUk is an important commodity, used daUy in our homes. It is tragic that Queensland's claim to fame is that it has the highest mUk prices in the country. Whereupon the honourable member laid on the table the document referred to. Mr LINGARD (Fassifem) (4.13 p.m.): In speaking briefly in the debate, I add my support to the Minister. It is necessary that the Bill pass through aU three stages before the House rises for the Christmas recess. Clearly, that is unusual, but I am convinced that it is in the best interests of the Queensland Dairymen's Organisation and Queensland suppUers. My view is supported by the many suppUers in the Beaudesert area whom I have already contacted. They supply milk to four factories, including the South Coast factory, about which the member for Ashgrove (Mr Veivers) has spoken. The legislation is necessary for the processors who have been affected by the recent legislation providing for 100 per cent transferability. The Govemment is to be congrat­ ulated on its program of introducing 100 per cent transferabiUty. That has been in the best interests of suppliers and has also forced processors to compete for suppliers according to the prices paid. One of the objects of the BiU is to control the licensing of persons who produce, manufacture, store and distribute market mUk and cream. The Bill controls the allocation 3390 5 December 1985 MiUc Supply Act Amendment Bill

of producer and processor market milk entitlements. The BUI wiU have some sigiuficant effects. That is why it is necessary to take action now to introduce this legislation rather than wait untU Parliament reassembles on 18 Febmary. The BUI provides for a system of market milk entitlement negotiabiUty within processor groups in prescribed areas, which wiU aUow producers to buy and seU entitiements at prevaiUng market prices. I support that measure. I also support the fact that negotiabiUty is necessary, provided that the negotiabiUty is confined to processor groups and provided that the negotiabiUty is confined to a prescribed area. I beUeve that it is necessary to allow transactions that wiU have an effect on market price. At this stage, under the Milk Entitlements Scheme, a l-Utre entitlement can be bought for $50. I beUeve that, if suppUers can send milk to a processor and receive 37c a Utre for quota milk and either 12c a litre or, as was the case with the Logan and Albert Dairy Co-operative, 10c a Utre for the rest, it is only natural that, if they can buy an extra quota which wiU Uft the 12c a Utre miUc to the category of quota miUc at 37c a Utre, it will take no time at all for the price of miUc to escalate. I beUeve that, eventuaUy, it wiU be necessary to introduce legislation that wiU peg the price of milk because, as other honourable members have said, companies wiU try to take over milk quotas and dominate the industry. I am not particularly upset about that because, after aU, those people who engage in dairy-farming—even smaU dairy- farmers—wiU be able to seU their present entitlements. It is not as though they wiU be robbed, because they wUl be able to make a personal decision. However, I beUeve that the Govemment wiU have to regiUate the activities of companies or very lai^e organisations that may wish to come in and buy up the quotas. The amendments wUl provide the Milk Entitlements Committee with the necessary powers to implement a system of milk entitlement negotiabiUty and to administer the Act effectively. The provisions of the Act wUl be strengthened by the amendments, especiaUy those that relate to the 100 per cent transferabiUty of producer entitiement between processors. Previously, under the provisions of 5() per cent transferabiUty, transfers were not taking place. The system was reaUy one of non-transferabiUty. It is pleasing that the Minister is introducing legislation that wUl aUow for 100 per cent transferabiUty. I can assure the Minister that that provision has been welcomed by the dairy industry. The company that has possibly been most critical of that move, the L and A company, would accept that 100 per cent transferabiUty is a good thing. Members of that company, including Mr Egan, have said that they would prefer the franchising arrangement to be extended as weU, but they would also agree that 100 per cent transferabiUty is a step in the right direction. Because of the large movement of producers among processors, it is necessary to provide strict regvUatory control by the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the BUI wiU have the effect of omitting certain provisions of the Act that relate to the retention, by processors, of producer entitlements when diversion of supply is undertaken by a producer. That move applies particularly to the Booval situation where five or six suppliers have moved to Toowoomba. To understand the impUcations, one has to understand the difference between quotas that are designated by a factory and entitiements that are designated by the entitiements committee. It is hoped that, in the near future, quotas and entitlements wUl be placed on a simUar footing. However, where there is a difference that has been caused by a supplier's productivity or lack thereof, difficulties are created when a supplier wishes to transfer between factories. This amendment has received general support from many of the suppUers in the Beaudesert area. I am the first to admit that criticism will be leveUed at the legislation but, because the dairy industry has experienced considerable turmoil owing to various factors, world prices and the lack of an expanding overseas market have been the cause of the greatest traumas. The domestic market is obviously limited, because States such Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3391

as Victoria have refused to restrict the expansion of their production. The result has been that Victoria wants to dump mUk in Queensland. Queenslanders have guarded the industry jealously. By doing so and by placing severe restrictions on excess production, which has been monitored by the Milk Entitiements Committee, I think it is fair to say that the policy has caused many headaches. However, there can be no doubt that, since the MEC was set up in June 1978 to control redistribution of drop-out and growth market milk, considerable expansion of the industry has occvured. I support the legislation, as do most suppUers. Because the QDO and its president, Pat Rowley, support it, I recommend it to the House. Mr BURNS (Lytton) (4.20 p.m.): In the words of the Minister, the MUk Supply Act has been amended from time to time to keep pace with changes that have occurred within the industry. The BiU refers to milk-producers and milk-processors, but there is very little joy for milk-vendors. I predict that today's rise in the price of domestic milk wiU bring about the demise of the milk-vendor, the distributor who for years has provided a door- to-door service, day in and day out, in all types of weather. After talking to vendors, I am of the opinion that Queensland United Foods has always wanted to bring about the demise of the small retailer—the smaU vendor—the tme smaU-businessman in the mUk industry. It is a pity that this Govemment, which talks about its commitment to smaU business, has not acted to protect the smaU-business vendors from that large predator. The introduction of the 2-Utre plastic bottles in December 1984 resulted from the decision of QUF and the Queensland Milk Board in about July that year to use the threat of interstate milk, particularly from Victoria, as a reason for attacking retailers' margins. Many retaUers first found out about the substantial 6c reduction that they alone woiUd have to carry on each 2-Utre plastic bottle when they read about it in the Government Gazette. As I understand it, in costing the introduction of plastic bottles, the Milk Board conducted a survey of costs based on only 23 wholesale mns throughout Queensland. I asked the Minister a question on the subject, and he admitted that the survey was based only on those 23 wholesale mns. As a result, the board determined that wholesale vendors—and I stress "wholesale"—could not justify 3c a Utre. So, on the basis of that survey of some wholesale milk-vendors, the board determined that the retailers should carry the reduction—not the wholesalers, not the processors, not the producers, but the vendors. They had not been surveyed or consulted. A letter dated 31 July 1984 from the Milk Board to the Minister stated— "The Board at a meeting held on Friday, 27th July, 1984, considered a report of the special committee which examined the possibUity of interstate milk entering the Queensland market and related costing exercises. FoUowing detailed consideration of the committee's proposals, it was agreed that an initial price reduction of three cents per Utre or six cents per two Utre container should be deducted from the vending sector of the market milk industry." It was taken from the vending sector after the board checked the costs of the wholesalers. The board then determined to take 6c out of the pockets of the retaUers—the smaU- businessmen—despite the fact that the National Party Govemment says that it is interested in small business. Many vendors felt that that decision in relation to the introduction of the 2-Utre plastic bottles had little to do with the Victorian threat. It was sponsored, initiated and nurtured by Queensland United Foods. I am told that QUF had made it known that it wanted glass bottles to be phased out for a number of reasons, but primarily because it could not market them through 3392 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill

major supermarket chains. For quite some time, the supermarkets had refused to handle glass bottles, and the reasons for that refiisal are obvious. Members have only to think for a moment to become aware of the problems facing Woolworths, K mart, Coles and other large supermarkets when people retum milk bottles. They do not want to be left with the botties; they want to market disposable containers. Before today's price rise, the retailers were still able to say to a famUy buying a substantial quantity of milk that they could buy on maximum price 10 glass botties of milk at a better price than three 2-Utre plastic botties of milk. In other words, the vendor was able to offer cheaper milk throu^ glass bottles. Today's price rise wiU virtuaUy price the glass bottle out of existence. Brisbane consumers will now be paying 80c minimum and 82c maximum for a litre of milk, whereas consumers in Sydney are paying 71c, in Melboume 72c, in Adelaide 68c, in Perth 74c, in Hobart 74c, in Canberra 66c and in Darwin 71c. Although Queensland has a board that controls milk prices and determines that the price cannot be cut, Queensland has the highest-priced milk in Australia. That Govemment-appointed board lays down the minimum price of milk Mr FitzGerald: Are you in favour of interstate trading? Mr BURNS: I am telling the honourable member what wiU happen. Because of what the Govemment is doing, interstate trading wiU begin. Listen for a minute, blue- headed boy, and you will leam a few tricks. As of today, the cost of a Utre carton of milk is 82c maximum and 8(k; minimum. A 2-litre plastic bottle has gone from $1.48 maximum to $1.56 maximum. That means that if a person buys two litres at 80c minimum, it costs $1.60. If he buys a 2-Utre plastic bottle at the maximum price, it costs him $1.56. Firstly, that is discrimination against the pensioner, the smaU purchaser and the single-person family, simply because the MUk Board has allowed prices to be manipulated. Even worse, under today's increase, the vendor is to get the smallest share. The Govemment is pushing him out of the industry. It is bludging on him. It is destroying the littie man, the promoter, who sells the milk. Whenever a new housing area is established, the first man at the door is the milk- vendor. He arrives and asks, "Do you want milk deUvered?" He is there to do it. The dairy-farmers could not sell as much of their milk without the vendors. How many houses that buy milk from supermarkets have a continuing supply of milk in their refrigerators? Very few of them do. The milk mns out. The vendor who goes from door to door is the backbone of the industry, because he sells the product. Mr FitzGerald interjected. Mr BURNS: The honourable member should not talk such utter mbbish. He should listen for a moment. The small-businessman, the small vendor, got the raw end of the prawn from the National Party which, supposedly, is always interested in small businesses. It could not care less about them. The honourable member for Lockyer revealed that in his interjection. So far as I can ascertain, QUFs sole contribution to this campaign, which is allegedly designed to stop the intmsion of interstate milk, was the purchase of a $ 1.5m plant to produce plastic bottles at a profit. I am told that QUF, with its anti glass-bottle attitude, has ordered an additional machine to make 2-litre plastic bottles. It will spend a further $1.5m. Who wiU pay for that? The consumer will pay. In answer to a question I asked on 21 November 1985, the Minister said that QUF is curtently packaging, in glass botties, about 36 per cent of its total production. However, according to QUF, the percentage is 34.5, which is down approximately 9 per cent since the introduction of the 2-litre plastic bottle. I am told by vendors that, when the percentage drops to 20, QUF will cut out glass bottles completely. Today's price decision will hasten the demise of the glass bottle. Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3393 When a vendor delivers bottles of milk, the average family home, such as mine, buys a bottle of milk a day. Mr FitzGerald: A bottle of milk a day? Mr BURNS: If I bought as much milk as the quantity of beer bought by the honourable member for Lockyer, all the dairy-farmers in this country would make a miUion dollars. The milk-vendors tell me that people who used to buy one bottle of milk a day now buy a 2-litre container of milk once or twice a week. Less milk is being sold. I wiU explain to the honourable member what that means to the dairy-farmers. I am told that QUE intends to withdraw the glass bottles weU before the 20 per cent mark is reached. QUF is building a super depot at Stafford and preparing to close at least five north side depots at which vendors now pick up milk for delivery. If that happens, nine depots wiU have disappeared in the last two years. QUFs plan is to have one super depot to cover the whole of the south side. I am told that that depot wiU be weU out of town, at Calamvale. Because another five depots will disappear, mUk-vendors wiU be forced to travel many extra miles back and forth to the new super depots. That wUl mean more cost on the vendors and more distribution problems. Vendors will have to travel from Pine Rivers to Stafford and retum to do their mns. Many vendors have told me that they cannot predict customer demand, that their tmcks are relatively smaU and that they do not want to carry extra milk that they cannot seU, so they do not stock up. It was all right to do that when the little depots were fairly numerous. Vendors could drive a few miles to the depot and pick up additional supplies. It will be very costly for vendors if they are to spend a half-hour each way driving in and out of town, the Pine Rivers vendors will have to come right into Stafford, and the vendors at Wynnum will have to come into Calamvale. When the Calamvale depot is opened, more south side depots will be closed. If the Govemment kiUs the vendor, it may well kill the goose that lays the golden egg. As the vendor disappears, the dairy farm door-to-door salesman disappears. I believe that the quantity of dairy products sold, especially milk, wiU decreae. The supermarkets will then dominate the market. When they control the lion's share, the tail wiU wag the dog. They could determine to import milk and today's shonky interstate threat would become a fact. Any supermarket store seUs Victorian lamb and fish from New Zealand and South Africa. The supermarkets are not concemed about the local producers. Chickens are brought from interstate. Govemment members should talk to the feUow in north Queensland who used to supply all the fresh chickens to Caims. Because he would not cut his prices to suit the supermarkets, they are flyingi n fresh chickens from Melboume, not Brisbane. No-one in this State is making a buck out of the sale of fresh chickens. Under this BUI, the Govemment wiU get rid of the little vendor. It worked against him with the plastic bottles; it reduced his margin; and QUF reduced the number of depots. The Govemment permitted QUF to manipulate the industry to suit itself When the littie vendor goes, Coles, Woolworths and the other supermarkets wiU control aU the milk that is sold in Queensland, and the customer wiU pay every buck that Coles and Woolworths will not pay. The blokes on the dairy farms can go jump. If the supermarkets cannot get mUk at the right price from the dairy-farmers, they wiU get it from over the border. The Minister cannot introduce legislation to stop that. When I got out of the air force in 1957, I hawked fish from the fish market. I saw a bloke named Kingston come to the fish market, take on the fish trade here and import fish from the northem rivers area of New South Wales. Under section 92 of the Constitution, which is the provision that relates to free trade between States, he beat the Fish Board in court. Because the Milk Board and the Govemment are Wind to what they are doing to the littie bloke, the same thing wiU happen in the milk industry. The vendor has been

69066—114 3394 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill the best salesman that the mUk industry has ever had. He goes door to door, asks the customer what he wants and deUvers fresh product when the customer needs it day in and day out. The Govemment has done nothing for him; it has ignored him. But it does so at its own risk. When the Govemment tries to introduce legislation to control the activities of the supermarkets and QUF, it will be too late. Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham) (4.31 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in this debate today, because, although a considerable number of dairy-farmers have given the industry away, I, along with the members for Warwick and Lockyer, represent approximately one-third of the dairy-farmers in Queensland. A large number of dairy-farmers can stiU be found on the Darling Downs. I did have some reservations about certain aspects of the Bill, but many of the potential problems that I foresaw have been sorted out. I thank the Minister for giving his attention to those problems conceming the dairy factories and co-operatives such as the Downs Dairy, the Quinalow Co-operative, which is part of the Kraft organisation, and the Warwick Dairy. Indeed, those dairies are uniquely placed in comparison with the metropoUtan suppliers. When someone wants to buy the drop-out mUk quota from someone else, or when someone buys a farm or amalgamates a number of farms and the entitiement goes up to 750 Utres, 20 per cent of that goes into a pool together with the growth to be redistributed. That was the basis of the original legislation. The intention was to ensure continued viabiUty in the dairy industry and to ensure that smaUer dairy- farmers were not forced out to the benefit of the metropoUtan suppliers and the very large suppUers on the south coast and the north coast. I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to direct the MiUc Entitlements Committee to develop appropriate poUcies to facUitate arrangements that wiU apply in individual cases, for periods not exceeding six months, if so requested by a processor and producers within a processor group. During a drought or when funds are short, they are not able to purchase a quota. That meant that the processor group could go in there and act basicaUy as a banker and buy that entitlement on behalf of all the suppliers. If the group wanted to do it that way, it could redistribute the entitlement across all the suppliers. If a few people wanted to build up their daily entitlement, they could do it through the processor, which woiUd act as a banker, and they would have to pay it off over a number of years. I thank the Minister for that assurance. Obviously, that concemed some of the suppliers in my area. I support some of the comments made by the member for Warwick (Mr Booth), who has had a long association with the industry and a tremendous amount of experience in it. In fact, he probably knows more than any other member in this place about the dairy industry. I admit that the Minister for Local Govemment, Main Roads and Racing (Mr Hinze) also understands the industry very weU. The proposal to Umit suppliers who are already over the 750-litre prescribed quantity is a good one. In future, if they want to amalgamate farms, they wiU not be able to hold the entire entitlement. Forty per cent of it wiU be retumed to the pool for redistribution to the below-average suppliers. Mr Turner: At no cost. Mr ELLIOTT: That is right, at no cost. That is a continuation of the thmst of the legislation that was first introduced in 1977. What the Govemment tried to do was ensure the position of the have-nots and keep them viable where that was humanly possible. Mr Kruger: It's a pity the hob-nobs played round with that scheme. Mr ELLIOTT: It is like anything else. The best-laid plans of mice and men sometimes go astray. I support the remarks of the member for Warwick when he dealt with Opposition criticism, in an eariier debate, of Ministers for amending legislation. Surely that is what MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3395 this place is aU about. If the Govemment is not continuaUy fine-tuning legislation, it is not doing its job. Day by day and year by year, problems arise. When they are brought to the attention of the Govemment, it has to do something about them. I am pleased that the legislation before the House will stop people from buying dairy farms, amalgamating them, selling off the real estate, retaining the market milk entitlement and gaining some benefit for themselves. That is not what the thmst of the initial legislation was aU about. I support the legislation. I thank the Minister for his support in trying to iron out and sort out some of the problems that were foreseen on the Darling Downs. In most instances, I am basically a free marketer, but that does not work in every industry. In the past, the price of milk entitlements was $50 per litre. The suggestion was that $62.50 would have been a more reasonable figure, because that would have allowed 20 per cent to be retumed to the pool for redistribution. That would have stiU given the vendor his $50 a litre. If that price had been aUowed to float freely in the market­ place, the possibility was that people with money from sources unconnected with the dairy industry could amalgamate very large entitlements and put together large pools of milk. That would militate against the industry on the DarUng Downs. We on the DarUng Downs were a little concemed about that. In fact, that is the only concem. I ask the Minister to keep a watching brief over it. If that does take place, I will ask him to make sure that the industry in my area is not wiped out by things that happen as a result of this legislation. I support the BUI. Mr HAMILL (Ipswich) (4.39 p.m.): In 1977, when the MiUc Supply Act was introduced, there was a great deal of optimism about the effect that it may have in creating greater equity in the dairying industry. Mr FitzGerald: It has. Mr HAMILL: I am glad that the honourable member says that it has, because enormous inequities still exist in the dairying industry owing to the lack of access that suppUers in certain areas have to the lucrative milk market. Mr FitzGerald: Do you believe that we should have Victorian milk up here? Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Lockyer is extremely voluble. It is a shame that he does not have a little more concem for some of the ciairy-farmers who are trying to eke out their existence on the DarUng Downs. As honourable members would be aware, the Queensland Farmers Co-operative Association Ltd is located in Booval, which is in my electorate. A considerable amount of information comes through my office conceming the problems in the dairying industry. The Milk Supply Act 1977, as amended, provides for the estabUshment of the MiUc Entitlements Committee, which is the tool by which greater equity can be assured in the allocation of milk entitlements. One of its important responsibilities is to redistribute drop-out milk among those disadvantaged areas that did not have great access to the lucrative market milk. There is a division in the industry. The suppliers of mUk to the south coast or north coast dairies or to QUF have been in a very privUeged position, whereas other south-east Queensland suppUers, whether they be in the West Moreton area, the Logan and Albert area, the Warwick area or the Darling Downs area, continue to be disadvantaged. Because of that division, there is a great deal of bittemess in the industry. Despite the legislation, the influential and the rich are getting richer and more influential, and those who are not so well connected are continuing to stmggle to remain in the industry. The intentions of the legislation that was introduced in 1977 and the proposed amendments are good. However, I am afraid that the industry has suffered greatly because of the manipulators referred to by the honourable member for Ashgrove (Mr 3396 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment BiU

Veivers). Those persons work their way round various avenues to enhance their position and, in so doing, subvert the real intention of the legislation. It is indicative of the cancer that the Opposition has depicted in this State. That cancer is spreading through the administration of much of Govemment in this State. People of influence are wielding their poUtical influence through questionable practices and undue influence being placed upon decision-making. That political influence is also weU known in the dairying industry. Recent appointments in the dairying industry smack very much of the Govemment's looking after its own or some of its newly acquired supporters. For example, there was the appointment of the former Liberal Minister for Justice and Attomey-General and recent National Party member (Sam Doumany) as chairman of the Milk Board. That is one example of the sort of poUtical patronage that is handed out by the Queenland Govemment. Mr FitzGerald: Do you say he was not quaUfied? Mr HAMILL: I said that he is a member of the National Party who was recently appointed to the Milk Board. Mr FitzGerald: Do you think he's quaUfied? Mr HAMILL: Does the honourable member for Lockyer suggest that he was not quaUfied? Mr FitzGerald: I am asking you. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member should not endeavour to put words into my mouth. I stated certain facts that the honourable member cannot dispute. We have seen poUtical influence come to bear on some of the decisions that have been made. It was not long ago that I discussed, at length in this Chamber, the stripping operations that have been an ongoing problem in the dairying industry. Farms have been purchased not with the intention of continuing their dairies but to obtain the milk entitlement and to amalgamate it with a pre-existing mUk entitlement on another property, in effect subverting the legislation that the Govemment put in place. Reference has been made to the MaraUnga Pty Ltd exercise in which 38 ha of a former dairy farm was acquired. For some time, that issue taxed the mind of a former Minister for Primary Industries. At the time, he indicated that it was a very deUcate situation into which he was not going to msh very readUy. The former Minister is very sensitive about that because he has a reputation and a career to look after. Two and a-half years ago, when some of these matters were raised, it certainly was not unknown that the industry faced a whole host of problems. On 30 March 1983, when my colleague the honourable member for Murmmba (Mr Kmger) very capably outUned a number of serious problems in the industry, the then Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahem) said— "I reject completely any suggestion of rorts, shonky deals or frauds and any other reflections on the people associated with my administration or that of the administration of the industry. I reject such accusations because I believe that they cannot be substantiated by facts." Mr Kruger: They are still going on. Mr HAMILL: The honourable member for Murmmba says that they are still going on. The Minister was tuming a Nelsonian blind eye to the fact that the industiy was rife with manipulation and subversion of the very legislation that it was his job to uphold. MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3397

The Minister was remarkably inconsistent, because it was not long after he made that statment that he made a comment that is very interesting in the Ught of his claim that there were reaUy no problems in the industry. He said— "I became concemed that some of the movements were beginning to take on a character of trying to prevent a drop-out from occurring. It could be described as a device to prevent a drop-out from occurring." The Minister there acknowledged the tmth of the aUegations that had been made by my colleague the honourable member for Murmmba. The fact was that drop-outs were being prevented in the industry by the sharp operators moving in before a drop-out occurted, going back to the drop-out pool, purchasing the dairy concemed, and swallowing up the milk entitlement. The Minister cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, the Minister is saying that everything is fine; on the other, he is admitting that the industry faced very serious problems. There was a huge gulf between what the Minister said and what he did. At that time, the Minister had been claiming that his administration of that portfoUo would provide the guide-lines under which the whole problem of drop-out milk being prevented from going into the pool would be overcome. In November 1982, the Queensland Dairy Farmer published the new guide-Unes—the Ahem guide-Unes—that should be appUed by the MUk Entitlements Committee in considering appUcations for amalgamations and so on. The Milk Entitlements Committee stated— "SALE AS A GOING CONCERN: In the event of a sale of a dafry property as a going concem, it shaU be a requirement of the Milk Entitlements Committee that the total area of the property on which the market mUk entitlement has been estabUshed, or that portion which has been utilised for the production of the market milk entitlement, and equates to the dairy produce premises specified in the Certificate of Registration or of Renewal of Registration of dairy produce premises under the Dairy Produce Act 1978 and equates to the property description and area as set out in the application for a producer licence under the MUk Supply Act 1977- 1981, shall be purchased. In any other situation, the Committee will evaluate the circumstances and may use its powers under the Milk Supply Act 1977-1981. Each situation will be examined on its individual merits." What an extraordinary set of guide-lines! The last paragraph says it aU. I repeat that the final paragraph reads— "Each situation will be examined on its individual merits." It is that sort of loophole, which the then Minister for Primary Industries left open, that allowed amalgamations, such as Maralinga, to occur. In that case, only a very small portion of a dairy farm was acquired, not because it was to be continued as a diary farm but because of the desire to obtain additional milk entitlement and prevent that milk entitlement going back into the drop-out pool where it may have been reallocated to a dairy-farmer in the West Moreton area, on the Darling Downs or in one of the other disadvantaged areas. Mr Kruger: It would have helped 10 other farmers. Mr HAMILL: Indeed it would have. As I recall, it was a very large entitiement. The allegations raised by the honourable member for Murmmba at that time were dismissed by the then Minister, who also said at that time— "All of the issues that relate to the Holm case—" that is, of course, Charlie Holm— "the Hinze case, the Rowley case and the Falkenhagen case were legitimate transfers within the guide-lines laid down at the time." 3398 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill

Of course, they were legitimate transfers within the guide-Unes, because the guide-lines aUowed almost anything to occur. One instance to which the Minister did not refer is interesting. Reference was made to it at the time, but, to appreciate the importance of the legislation, it is incumbent on us aU to give consideration to it again this aftemoon. I refer to the transfer in July 1982 of a property formerly owned by PhiUip Kingsley White and Lyndall Anne White of Bonny Doone in the Upper Coomera Valley. The purchasers were Nancy Jessica Drynan, WilUam Ray Drynan, Raymond John Francis Dennis, DarreU Thomas Dennis, Leonard Allen Bischoff and Coral Ruth Bischoff. The purchase price of the land was $75,(X)0. The parcel of land was a dairy farm of a very interesting size, being 2.2257 ha aU told. It was described as portion 118, parish of Bartow, county of Ward. It is interesting to note also that there was no dairy on that parcel of land. Not surprisingly, the Department of Primary Industries took a rather dim view of that appUcation. The documents relating to the transfer have been in the public arena for some time, but it is worth while poring over them once more. On 3 September 1982, the Acting Director, Division of Dairying and Fisheries, sent the foUowing memorandum to the Director-General about the matter— ". . . that the Minister does not approve the transfer of a dairy registration in the names of P. K. & L. A. White, Bonnie Doone, Upper Coomera VaUey to W. R. & J. F. Drynan and R. J. F. & D. T. Dennis and L. A. & C. R. Bischoff, Telemon Crossing, Beaudesert." The memorandum contains this commentary, which it is worth whUe heeding— "The property described as Portion 118 Parish of Barrow County of Ward, containing an area of 2.2257 hectares is not considered to be of sufficient area to be a viable dairy enterprise." It then continues on in some detail before adding— "Advertisements in Queensland Country Life and Queensland Dairyfamier newspapers show that dairy plant and stock were offered for sale on 16 JiUy 1982. This would indicate that the property had not been purchased for the purpose of dairying . . . The clearing sale was conducted by Drynan et al.

It is suggested that the property was purchased only to obtain extra market mUk entitlement which would then be transfered to the existing dairy farms of the purchasers. It also would resuh in the farm entitlement remaining with the processor, viz. South Coast Coop. Dairy Assn. and not becoming part of the pool for distribution." Quite clearly, in the view of the department, it was a classic stripping operation designed to prevent milk falling back into the drop-out pool to be subsequently reallocated by the Milk Entitiements Committee. The final comment made is— "Trading in milk entitlement outside of that implemented by the Milk Entitlements Committee, is not aUowed under curtent govemment policy." Mr Kmger: Did you know that Chariie Holm waited on the Minister on behalf of the Whites on that occasion? Mr HAMILL: There are fiirther matters relative to the transfer that are worthy of consideration. That departmental recommendation was rejected by the Minister (Mr Mike Ahem) who, on 8 October 1982, wrote to the Director-General in tiiese terms— "I have thought long and hard about this question of the transfer of tiie licence from Mr. White to Messrs. Drynan et al and had extensive consultation with industry about it. Whilst not happy about it, I believe in the circumstances, I have no altemative but to ask the Department to approve the transfer. MiUc Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3399

I ask that it be considered as the last one before 'the gate closes' and draw your attention to a letter which is in this folder ..." The Minister then referred to a letter from the QDO. In that memorandum, the Minister recognised that it was not an appropriate practice under the Act, yet he was prepared to allow it to go ahead. He said that it would be the last one and that he would institute guide-Unes that would stop practices of that nature. At the same time, the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahem) wrote to Mr A. P. Beatty, the then chairman of the Milk Entitlements Committee. In similar terms, he addressed this very question in a letter that was despatched on 26 October 1982 and read as foUows— "I am not very happy about the circumstances of this sale and transfer of Ucense and entitlement but accept that in the circumstances I have Uttle altemative in the matter but to ask my Department to approve the transfer. However, this should be considered as the last such case." The last paragraph of the letter is the best part of all. It reads— "Finally, I would reiterate that I wish this case to be the last of its kind as a proliferation of such cases will lead to a complete subversion of the intentions of the MUk Supply Act and of the role of the Milk Entitlements Committee." Surely that quote reflects the very point that my colleague was addressing when he raised these matters in the House, and surely that was the very point that the Minister failed to acknowledge in his speech in the House in March 1983. I cannot understand why the Minister had no altemative, because his departmental advisers had been suggesting in the strongest terms that the sale should be rejected because it fell outside the guide-lines as the departmental officers interpreted them. The Minister has been repeatedly pressed about this issue and about why he rejected the advice of his departmental officers. He said publicly that if he had rejected this particular appUcation, that would have caused hardship to the vendors. It was interesting to note that after the transaction was completed, the vendor publicly stated that he owned land worth $2m, a Volvo, and a $96,000 yacht, and that his only encumbrance was a loan repayment of $800 a month to the Commonwealth Bank at Coolangatta. Throughout that period, there was no mention of another important factor, namely, the involvement of Carl Henry Holm, otherwise known as CharUe Holm, who is a prominent member of the National Party and the holder of a number of important offices in that party. It was alleged that Mr Holm arranged a meeting between the purchaser of the property and the Minister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahem). I am not sure of the extent of Mr Holm's interest in this matter. Mr Holm denied that he played any part in setting up the meeting. I quote from a report that was pubUshed in The Courier-Mail on 15 May— "Mr Holm last night denied he had ever artanged a meeting between the buyer of the property and Mr Ahem. He said he believed the buyer had bought enough land to mn a dairy, even though he had not bought the whole property." The land referted to was 2.2 ha without a dairy. No-one could mn many cattie on that area of land, and not much milk would be produced, either. That was a comment made by Mr Holm about the matter. It is unfortunate that he and the Minister do not liaise closely enough so that they can get their stories lined up. An indication of the Minister's attitude is given in the following extract from an interview that was broadcast on the AustraUan Broadcasting Corporation radio program PM on 15 May. The reporter, John Austin, asked whether 3400 5 December 1985 Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill

a meeting took place with Mr Holm relative to this particular purchase. The transcript of the interview reads— "Did you in fact have a meeting with the purchaser of the land at the behest of Mr Home?" It must be remembered that Mr Holm had previously said that that did not occur, but the Minister said as follows— "Yes, Mr. Home asked me to see the guy, as Mr. Home asked me to see lots of people from time to time, and he didn't come, he didn't attend the party concemed, and there were other parties at the time attended, and I listened to the representation as I wanted to fully appraise myself" The Minister said that Mr Holm faciUtated the meeting, but Mr Holm denies knowing anything about it. On 16 May, the Minister confirmed the arranged meeting on the Channel O news. I have read from the transcript of interview in which the Minister for Primary Industries acknowledged that Mr Holm is a very influential gentieman in the National Party. In that interview, the Minister was also asked about the question of departmental advice relative to permitting the amalgamation. The Minister was asked— "Well why did you go against your department?" Mr Ahem replied— — "I

brought to bear in a whole range of areas of Govemment endeavour. At that time, a number of dairy-farmers were particularly disappointed in what they perceived to be the Govemment's attitude to their pUght. When Nationwide made an extensive report on the problems in the dairy industry in May 1983, a spokesman for the dairy-farmers actuaUy had some kind words to say for the member for Warwick. However, when it came to the former Minister, he said— "Mike Ahem has not been of any help at all in fact, he's backing the other side to put it mUdly we've been to see Mike on not less than three or four occasions and if I can say one good thing about Ahem it's that he makes himself very avaUable but after he's made himself avaUable he do nothing for you." That is the sort of resentment and disappointment that is so rife in the industry. That whole episode is a very sad chapter when it comes to the rights of dairy- farmers, because the smaU suppUer misses out yet again. It is a sad indictment of the former Minister, who endeavours to portray himself as something of a white knight, the Mr Qean of the Govemment. Perhaps, on the basis of this episode, he is no worse and Uttie better than his coUeagues. This whole business is a sad chapter for the dairy-farmer who wants to get about his business and obtain additional milk entitlements according to the rtUes.I n respect of the former Minister, it represents a sad chapter in what could have been a briUiant ministerial career. Hon. N. J. TURNER (Warrego—Minister for Primary Industries) (5.4 p.m.), in reply: I thank aU honourable members for their contributions to the debate. In my second-reading speech, I explained the reasons for, and the objectives of, the BiU. It wotUd be fair to say that not one of the nine speakers in the debate indicated that he was opposed to the purposes of the Bill. The honourable members for Murmmba and Ashgrove and several other honourable members referred to the price of milk in Queensland. I believe that milk is moderately priced in Queensland and that it is an excellent health food. Surely, honourable members opposite are not opposed to dairy-farmers receiving a just reward for their labour. The price of milk has not risen in Une with CPI increases. The last increase in the price of milk occurted 18 months ago. As the honourable member for Lytton said, when the 2- Utre bottles were introduced some time ago, the price was reduced. I do not propose to cover all of the matters raised by the honourable member for Murmmba. He introduced some red herrings that were not relevant to this legislation. They confuse the issue and do nothing to clarify the Bill before the House. As to the rejection of the Rowley plan—Australian dairy-farmers could be in for difficult times under the proposed Kerin plan. What I am proposing in the BiU wiU provide poUcies under which Queensland dairy-farmers can survive under the proposed Kerin plan. The honourable member accused the Govemment of procrastination but, at the same time, he accused the Govemment of forcing the legislation through. He cannot have it both ways. The legislation has been discussed fully with the industry and it has the support of the industry. The honourable member should not confuse consultation with procrastination. He referred also to the Hope Island situation. It comes within the ambit of the BiU. All dairy transactions wiU receive the same treatment. The honourable members for Warwick and Cunningham expressed concem in many ways about the BiU. I commend them for their contributions. I appreciate the role played by the dairying industry on the DarUng Downs and the contribution that the industry makes to the State. I assure those honourable members that I will contantiy monitor the effects of this BiU, particularly in relation to the price per litre. If the price rises too high and causes concem, I will bring further amendments to the House. Those honourable members also spoke about the ceUing of 750 Utres and the fact that anyone with over 750 litres purchasing additional litreage had to leave 40 per cent in the pool. That 40 per cent, with growth and drop-out, will go into the pool to be 3402 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment Bill distributed under the existing formula by the Milk Entitlements Committee to the below- average producers. That wiU benefit the people in that category tremendously. Both honourable members expressed the concem of processors and producers on the DarUng Downs and the options that may be avaUable to a processor to retain entitiement in that area. As I indicated when I was introducing the BUI into the House, I recognise that some producers in a processor group might experience difficulty in finaUsing artangements for the negotiabiUty of an entitlement because of a short-term problem, such as a lack of an immediate buyer. I see that not as being a serious problem, but one which cotUd occur in the short term. To accommodate such a set of circumstances, I have directed the Milk Entitlements Committee to develop appropriate poUcies and to submit them to me as soon as possible for consideration. I have advised the committee that I expect the poUcies to authorise a processor, who woiUd be a co-operative association, to act as an intermediary between the producer desiring to negotiate his entitiement and an lUtimate buyer. These arrangements wiU involve the sale of the entitlement between the vendor/producer and the buyer/ producer, with the common processor acting simply as the intermediary for a period not to exceed six months in individual instances. I visuaUse this poUcy authorising a processor to advance funds to a vendor/producer, on account of a negotiable entitiement, subject to the nUes of the co-operative. The vendor/producer wiU be required to provide a charge over the entitiement to the co­ operative untU the transaction is completed with the buyer/producer, at which time the vendor wiU receive fuU recompense less actual costs incmred by the processor. As interested producers may note, the above indication involves fairly standard administrative processes of the law and wUl be put into place by the Milk Entitiements Committee when requested by producers and processors. I beUeve that that procedure wiU aUeviate or overcome the problems mentioned by both honourable members. The honoiu-able member for Mackay spoke of the checks and controls in the sugar industry and other primary industries. I note his concem about vendors, but it is not relevant to this legislation. I thank the honourable member for Gympie for his contribution and for his imderstanding of the problems. He acknowledged the achievements of the Milk Entitiements Committee in relation to the redistribution of growth and drop-out to the below-average producers since its inception in 1978. I also pay tribute to the role that that committee has played. The honourable member mentioned also the Nestle operation in Gympie and the problems that have been experienced there. There has been rationaUsation in the dairy industry in the past, and that wUl continue. He correctly interpreted that the industry faces severe cUfficulties. The honourable member for Ashgrove made a big point of the Uttle man being forced out of the industry. I ask him to make that point to his coUeagues in Canberra, particularly to the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). The Minister's dafry indiisti7 policy—tiie Kerin plan—wUl achieve exactiy what the member for Ashgrove is concemed about. I wiU continue to make representations to Mr Kerin to modify his proposals in the interests of the dafry-farmers of AustraUa. The honourable member suggested that the Queensland Govemment is presiding over the demise of the dafry industry. I remind him that for many years ALP poUcy, which ALP Govemments in Canberra have tried to implement, has been "get bigger, or get out". That relates to tiie sugar industry, the dairy industi^ and aU other primary industries. Mr Kerin's proposal is to have export or import parity apply to the domestic prices of dairy products m Austi-aUa. That price is based on tiie dumping on cormpted world markets by countries and organisations such as the European Economic Community of MUk Supply Act Amendment BUI 5 December 1985 3403

heavUy subsidised dairy products. If that criterion is to be appUed to the dairy industry, it should be used as a bench-mark right across the board for every industry. The honourable member for Ashgrove mentioned a Mr Cochrane. He seemed to be against the phUosophy that anyone should get big. It is my understanding that that gentieman has bought aU his entitlement and buUt his property up to the size that it is. I assure the honourable member and aU other honoiu-able members that, under the poUcies of Mr Bob Hawke and the world's greatest Treasurer (Mr Keating), that wiU soon be fixedb y the capital gains tax. That wiU bring him right back to the field. Perhaps the honourable member for Ashgrove woiUd like to strip Mr Cochrane of his assets even more quickly than the honourable gentlemen from Canberra wiU. The honourable member for Fassifem spoke of the 1(X) per cent transferabiUty and the support that that proposal has received from the industry. I can cite numerous cases of people having written to me indicating that before the introduction of that transferabiUty they were losing anything from $15,000 to $20,000 a year, and even as much as $30,000 a year, by being forced to remain in one processor area. The honourable member spoke also of the need to pass the BiU in this session. I indicated previously that a freeze had been placed on transactions, which prevented certain people from making sales and moving out of the industry. The honourable member for Fassifem correctiy identified the benefits that wiU be avaUable to producers who choose to cease dairying. At the same time, he recognised the benefits avaUable to remaining producers and processors. The honourable member for Lytton spoke of the so-called threat of interstate milk, particularly Victorian milk. That tlu^eat stiU exists. He mentioned also the reduction in retums for the vending sector. I point out—and the honourable member did mention this—that QUF made a contribution of $ 1.5m to its plant to handle plastic 2-Utre bottles. Under the ADIAC plan, the Rowley plan and the Kerin plan, the producing sector of the industry would see reductions in production imposed either directly or by market forces. A levy would also be imposed. I might add that the Kerin plan foresees a levy of 2c per Utre on aU milk produced by aU dairy-farmers. Other sectors of the industry also receive set-backs. An interesting fact is that consumption in Brisbane has increased by 3 per cent. The city also has the highest per capita consumption of any capital city in AustraUa. I join with the honourable member for Lytton in acknowledging the role that the vending sector plays in the dairy industry and the effect that it has on the promotion of sales of milk products in this State. As most members would be aware, he is correct in saying that, under section 92 of the Constitution, the Govemment would have extreme difficulty in preventing interstate milk from moving into Queensland. The honourable member for Ipswich (Mr HamiU) spoke on many issues, most of which had already been covered by other members. He also spoke on many issues urelevant to the legislation. I thought it rather amusing that he said that the former Mmister for Primary Industries (Mr Ahem) did not accept a decision put to him by the department. I would not imagine that any Minister in any Govemment would be bound to accept aU advice offered by his department. If that were the case, the community would not elect members of ParUament; it woiUd elect departments. Mr Hamill: The thing that concemed me was that the departmental memorandum was very strongly opposed to letting that purchase go through. There were a number of points made, including that it was contrary to Govemment poUcy. None of those things were actually responded to by the Minister. Mr TURNER: I beg to differ. On numerous occasions, I saw the former Minister rise in this House, both in ministerial statements and in answer to questions, to indicate just what had transpired. He has adequately defended himself in that regard. I do not have any responsibility to stand up for something that happened before my time, but I beUeve that, on numerous occasions, he indicated what happened at that time. 3404 5 December 1985 MUk Supply Act Amendment BiU I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. Motion (Mr Tumer) agreed to. Committee Mr Booth (Warwick) in the chair; Hon. N. J. Tumer (Warrego—Minister for Primary Industries) in charge of the Bill. Clauses 1 to 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15—Amendment of s. 84; Functions— Mr KRUGER (5.18 p.m.): I do not wish to delay the Committee for very long on this matter. This clause deals with an amendment of section 84. As clauses 16 and 17 deal with amendments of sections 84 and 85, I wiU tie them all in together in a further effort to save time. The clauses give the capacity to vary, alter, amend, transfer, relocate or cancel any entitlement. What concems me is that that provision seems to give somebody an awful amount of power. I tmst and expect that the intent is to faciUtate deaUngs in milk entitlements. Certainly, I would Uke some assurance that the problems that have arisen in the past with the committee and those people who would be looking at these transfers, relocations, etc., wiU not arise again. I ask the Minister for some assurance as to the role that committees wiU play in this aspect of the BiU. I want an assurance that the intent of the Bill will be carried out. Mr TURNER: It wiU be subject to the direction of the Minister. These powers are necessary to carry out the intent of the legislation. They wUl be subject to confirmation by the Minister. Clause 15, as read, agreed to. Clauses 16 to 18, as read, agreed to. Clause 19—Repeal of and new s. 87; Entitiement to attach to land and holder— Mr KRUGER (5.19 p.m.): Clause 19 refers to a producer's entitlement. The clause states— "A person shall not supply miUc in relation to an entitlement through a registered dairy other than the registered dairy ..." I am aware of the situation with registered dairies and the processors to whom they decide to send their mUk. Clause 19 carries through to clause 20, which refers to the quaUfication of entitlement holders. EarUer, I referred to what wiU happen to the Hope Island entitiements. I expect that the people who operate that dairy wiU lease back from the Crown the areas that they had before the land was resumed. If that is so, I suppose that this clause covers what will happen to quotas and entitlements in the future. I ask the Minister whether I am viewing the clause in the right perspective. Mr TURNER: In my reply to the second-reading debate, I indicated that the Hope Island situation comes under the provisions of the Act. If anyone with an entitiement of more than 750 litres wishes to purchase that dairy, he will leave behind 40 per cent, which wiU go into the pool. If his entitiement is below 750 litres, he wiU stiU leave 20 per cent in the pool. He has the opportunity to lease back and continue operating there or to shift to other land, as would apply in any other case. Mr KRUGER: At present, their entitlements would be covered because they are leasing that land? Mr TURNER: That is correct. Clause 19, as read, agreed to. Clauses 20 to 27, as read, agreed to. Milk Supply Act Amendment Bill 5 December 1985 3405

Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading BiU, on motion of Mr Turner, read a third tinie. The House adjoumed at 5.23 p.m.